Nikon's Z5ii - Certainly the Best in Class.

Nikon Z5, Nikkor Z 24-50 f4-6.3

Nikon announced the new Z5ii last week.

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

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

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

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

 

A Couple Weeks Later - A7IV & Z7

A7IV, Tamron 17-28 f2.8

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

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

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

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

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

 

Full Frame and Every Day Carry - A Persistent Conundrum

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decision Done

 

Sony A7IV, Tamron 17-28mm f2.8

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

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

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

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

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

A Decision (Mostly) Made

Sony A7RIV, Tamron 70-300 FE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Chasing the Dragon

Nikon Z7, Z 40mm f2

 Yeah, I'm bad for chasing the dragon. Legendarily bad in fact as I've been doing a constant round robin between Nikon, Sony, m43 and Fuji for over 15 years now since I got my G1 back in January 2009.

What is Chasing the Dragon though? It's when following 'the grass is greener on the other side' to the logical extreme. At one point I made 3 total system switches in a 1 year period. That's crazypants, but it's also a legacy of my unwillingness to accept that I both have bad Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS) and the perfect camera for me doesn't yet exist, nor does the perfect lens lineup.

Over the last few years I've been actively trying to stop and settle on one system. I almost achieved it with Canon, as I stuck with that system for 18 months (a recent record) and honestly only switched back to Nikon because I was unhappy with the adaptation experience for manual lenses on Canon, I was otherwise pretty happy with Canon (the bracketing UI aside). 

The other problem is that I just don't deal well with having 2 systems. Or more correctly, I want to have 1 system/2 bodies in the field ideally when I'm shooting landscape/nature. Ideally with shared batteries (I rarely swap cards in practice so while I used to select for that, it's no longer a requirement so long as I have enough 128GB cards so every body has its own card(s). )

The problem is that right now my sole body is a high mileage body I bought cheap specifically as a body to use with my old manual lenses. I like the body, but it doesn't meet my video needs without me buying several additional accessories to rig it out (external display for starters) and I'm always cognizant that a camera with 316k shots on it may die on me. Plus I'd like some more performance for bugging/wildlife/aviation. 

So what are my options?

I've really settled on 4 possibilities, and I'm about ready to narrow that to three. The plan really is to have 2 options when I'm ready to go to the local pusher. 

The first is to do the obvious, stick with the Z7 and just buy a bunch of interesting glass. The downside here is just the usual Nikon issue, the lenses are big & heavy unless I buy some of the few DX lenses, and those are very consumer. But I do have the option to get a bunch of lenses I'd always wanted. I also have the concern that my Z7 will die at a point where I can't just buy another body, but the flip side of that is that most of my lenses will work on DSLR's and a D610 or D800 is stupid cheap, so it's unlikely I'd be out a body more than briefly even if it died at an inopportune time. 

The second is to go Fuji. Keep the Z7 and use it primarily with my collection of manual focus FF lenses, even slowly adding to that collection, but the main system becomes Fuji. The biggest advantage here is that Fuji does have both compact offerings and all but 2 of their lenses are under $3k CAD, with the majority being under $1300 or so. Plus there's a wide variety of small lenses in the system, which is very nice. Biggest downsides here are processing X-Trans files (which I still don't love, but I can readily get good results from) and the pretty mixed selection of lenses in terms of rendering styles and resolution. The bodies available cover all my use needs, the X-Hx for fast PASM with good long-lens handling, the X-T series for retro/everyday use and the X-M5 as a small EDC/Webcam body.  Fuji also gives access to the ridiculous number of cheap & interesting APS-C manual primes (and AF primes too),

The third is to add the Zf and a couple zooms, which is in many ways the Nikon body I always wanted. But here the big issue comes down to the Nikon lenses not being well optimized for that body. Specifically the lack of aperture rings, as well as control dials on the handful of smaller lenses in the system. 3rd Party lenses do make up somewhat for that (both size & handling) but the best lineup of 3rd party lenses for the Zf isn't available in Z mount, so you need a MegaDAP adapter to use them (that's the Sigma 'i' series primes). Plus the Zf simply doesn't have as well sorted a UI as the X-T5. The other issue here is the Zf is best suited to the use I bought the Z7 for, old manual lenses, and I kinda want to keep the Z7 focused on those uses. There's a half-step option here of getting the Z50II instead of the Zf, and focusing on APS-C for most uses. The Z7 is a solid APS-C body to cover the Z50II's weak spots (and vice versa for the most part). This would be better if I could expect a higher-end APS-C body from Nikon. 

The fourth option is basically option 2, but Panasonic L mount. With the new S1RII arriving tomorrow with very aggressive pricing this looks even better than the third option for full frame for long term usage, with a wide variety of interesting glass existing in L mount, but we're still talking a large system, even if it's smaller than the All-Nikon Z setup. Could go S9 for a tiny body here, or S5II for all singing/all dancing with the view of adding the S1RII in the future as a resolution body to address the Z7's eventual demise. Lots of reasonably priced glass in the system, and some compact & excellent zooms as well. 

Now the reality is that I don't need better IQ than crop can deliver, and Fuji offers me a more compact option than Panasonic. Nikon just doesn't offer a compact/high performance option (only the Z50II which lacks IBIS and a good EVF, both items I'm sensitive to). 

What I really wish I could do is spend a week with an S5II, 20-60, 35/1.8 and Sigma 100-400, and a Week with the X-T5, 16-50 f2.8-4, 23/2 and Sigma 100-400 and see which I get along with better.

Regardless of what path I choose, I will continue to use the Z7 and add interesting primes to my system. I'll probably add 2-3 zooms as well eventually, likely F mount lenses I get for good prices.  

Ponderings about Retro Cameras

 

Fujifilm X-T2, XC 35mm f2

I'm very strongly attracted to Retro cameras, specifically those similar in design to Nikon's iconic FM & FM2n. This is largely because I shot most of my film work on those cameras, the F3 and a few other similar bodies (FA, FM10, FE, FE2). I still own an original FE and an F2a. 

With retro cameras I've seen 3 general approaches across the 4 brands that have seriously done retro cameras.

The first is 'Retro in looks only' with the new OM-3 being the classic example, but the essentially the whole Olympus/OM System Micro4/3rds line except for the E-M1/OM-1 series fall into this category. A few Fuji's do as well, notably the X-Tx00 series. Essentially this is a camera with retro styling, but a modern PASM+dual dial interface. Key items are no external shutter speed or ISO dials, although an external exposure compensation dial is OK (we've even seen that on non-retro designs like some Sony's). These bodies tend to work well and look good, but don't tend to become iconic as in use, they're just another camera with a small grip (The Pen-F being the exception)

The second is the fully integrated design. This is a design where you get an external interface with ISO & Shutter speed dials, intended to work with an aperture ring on the lens, but also two control wheels and you can readily switch between dial and wheel interfaces as needed. The Majority of Fuji designs are in this category. It's also what Nikon has tried to do, but not quite achieved with their 3 retro designs (the Df being an abject failure and the Zfc and Zf being near-misses). The key here is that these bodies allow you to work both like a fully retro body with the external exposure triangle (usually plus exposure compensation) and a modern body, and allow you to switch each corner of the triangle independently and seamlessly. Fuji also does a few bodies that are partially here, with ISO replaced by either some alternate control or nothing on some bodies that are either lower-end or more compact.

The third approach is to make the most minimal concessions to digital possible. The only real entry here is the Leica M digitals, although the X-Pro3 dabbles in this. Leica has simply taken their film body, stuck digital internals into it and added the absolute minimum required to make them a functional digital camera. It works very well, if you want a camera that works like it's 1985 and only that way. 

The challenge with Nikon here is they continue to half-ass the experience. The Zfc and Zf are excellent cameras. But they suffer from two significant issues, only one of which is at the camera level.

At the camera level, the core issue is that they work well when only using the external dials and when only using the internal controls, but when mixing the two experiences it's a study in gotchas, especially with ISO where you need a written guide to figure out how everything interacts (except in Auto mode, where it does exactly what you'd expect when moving the ISO Dial in and out of C, why can't it be set to work the same in PASM modes?). Some of this comes down to the choice to borrow the PASM switch from the old Nikon FA rather than use a Pentax/Contax style A positions (Fuji clearly borrowed their X-T series UI from Pentax's retro-style AF cameras like the MZ-5n). Ironically many Nikon film bodies use A positions on the shutter speed dial (the FA was the exception here) and even a P position on a couple bodies (like the FG). I'd bet whoever was lead designer for the Zf and Zfc used these cameras only in all manual or in Auto (which are the two good experiences) with minimal use of Aperture priority in particular.

The other issue with the Nikon retro bodies is simply Nikon has not given users a lens selection to match these two rather popular bodies. Even the two SE lenses match in styling and size only, but as they lack an Aperture ring (or even a control ring) you can't use the lens as the third corner of the exposure triangle in manual focus. The two f1.4 lenses are a better experience as they do have a control ring, but you still can't see aperture on the lens, only on that tiny top LCD display. The irony here is that there is a good experience available, just not from Nikon. Many 3rd party primes come with aperture rings, so if you want the best experience just use Viltrox, Voigtlander, Meike, 7Artisans or TTArtisan lenses instead of Nikkors on your Zf. Nikon needs to start releasing lenses designed for these cameras in more than just cosmetics, as by all reports they are very good selling cameras and likely would sell even better if Nikon had thought out the lens needs of these cameras. 

So what can Nikon do.

In short - firmware updates. I'd like to see the following changes:

1. Setting in the Auto-ISO setup to disable Auto ISO when the ISO dial is not set to C

2. Setting in Controls CF's to 'have camera select shutter speed when dial set to C' 

3. Setting in Controls CF's to ' Use PASM switch for User Custom Settings' 

4. Setting in Controls that if setting 3 is enabled it allows the PASM Switch positions Auto, P, A & S to each be mapped to a Ux setting (U1/2/3/4) instead of AE modes. - This would also solve the loss of directly selectable user banks on these two cameras.

5. Add an A position after minimum aperture in the aperture range so you can dial into having the camera select aperture + respect A position on lenses with a physical aperture ring. 

Also, when the ZfcII comes (and eventually for the ZfII), give us a half-grip option with a shutter release and front control dial, like the OG E-M5 offered. That will be killer for these bodies with larger lenses. 

If you wonder why all the retro musings, well I can't frikking decide whether I want a Zf or an X-T5. Or to be more correct, I want a Zf, but I want some of the X-T5 experience (UI fully sorted and lenses with aperture rings). I keep digging in and realizing the two best kits for me would be X-H2+X-T5 or Z7+Zf, in both cases with the small creator camera added at some point for video/light carry (Z30/Zfc or X-M5/XT-30II). The question if I go Fuji is how do I align the body selection/acquisition as I ultimately would want two bodies, but do I get X-H2+creator or X-T5+creator first, then add the other higher-end body afterwards. 

More Musings - What Gear and Why

Fuji X-T2, 7Artisans 12mm f2.8 v1

I'm now less than 4 weeks away from receiving my yearly bonus, which will be finally used primarily to get what is hopefully my core working kit for the next couple years. 

The time gap has me going in circles, as I'm WAY too much of a gearhead and almost every option I've looked at has something serious going for it.

So first up - My quick takes on each option/system:

Sony - Great lens options, The FF cameras in my pricerange all have rough edges for my uses, I massively dislike the handling of their APS-C options. My Partner has an A7II so lens sharing is viable. Don't love how the files render. Poor software but good customization. Best pre-capture in larger formats, limited computational features. Poor experience for adapted non-CPU lenses. By far the worst JPEG profiles.

Canon - This would work for me, but lens options are limited. I like the cameras, I like the lenses, but they don't excite me. Canon is very much the image making appliance. Really good, but boring. OK software and customization. Latest bodies have mostly workable pre-capture, very limited computational features. Only 1 crop body has IBIS, poor experience for adapted non-cpu lenses. Limited JPEG profiles, but what you get is VERY good. 

Panasonic (FF) - In Isolation, this is arguably the best choice for me. Good bodies, good lenses, good handling, lots of interesting glass. But no APS-C options although the S9 is cheap enough to mostly cover the uses I'd otherwise look at a crop body for. Good software and customization. Best computational features in larger sensor formats and decent pre-capture. Good non-CPU lens experience. LUT support for JPEG makes JPEG profiles top-tier.

Nikon - Been a Nikon shooter since 1993. Love the lenses, love the ergonomics, Lacking in wide options and I'm a wide shooter. Lousy software & customization. (NB - Keeping my Z7 regardless for my legacy glass). Zf/Zfc have ergo/control layout issues but love the looks. Middling computational and pre-capture is crippled. No IBIS on crop. Good non-CPU lens experience, best manual focus aids (CPU lens only). Second best JPEG profile system, but worst marketed and limited community support. 

Fujifilm - I love the body design options, although I still don't like the chiclet buttons on some of the controls. Love the lens lineup, lots of oddball lenses. Best screen setups on less expensive bodies, lowish cost of entry. I'm not a fan of XTrans for colour files, but can get good results. Top-Notch B&W. Best marketed JPEG profiles. Very limited computational options, decent enough software, good non-CPU lens support.  Arguably the best selection of body styles for my uses in a single sensor size. Worst AF, but still usable. Good manual focus aids. Good customization, middling software. 

OM System - Nice bodies, Expensive, most bodies have crap viewfinders even at higher prices. Great glass, small size, sealed. The best computational features by a mile. Decent software. SOmewhat limited lens options due to more limited 3rd party support. Biggest problem is a lack of second body option. Good non-CPU lens support, poor manual focus aids due to software limitations. Love the files, but limited IQ vs other options. Overpriced bodies below the OM-1. Very good JPEG profile system, in 3rd place. Good software & customization

Panasonic (m43) - Lead body is excellent, combining all the features of its FF cousin with an excellent m43 sensor. Good webcam body (limited but small & cheap), no retro type body/compact body in between the two right now. Becomes viable when the GX9 gets updated with the current internals as the old internals suck by modern standards. Good lens selection. Kinda chonky for the sensor size. Best JPEG profiles (sae LUT system as FF), good computational support, good non-CPU lens support. Good software & customization

So, next up is what are my use cases.IE what do I use my cameras for, and how does that impact my gear.

1. Landscape/Nature photography. Bias towards reducing carry weight here. Need wide/normal, macro and tele options. This is my main zoom usage. 

2. Aviation - Mostly model aviation (I'm an RC'er) but also airshow. Good enough AF with long lens option and highish framerates. Takes a backseat to my other uses as I only do this a few times a year. 

3. Street/Cityscape/Urban detail - Very prime oriented, compact preferred. Don't care about AF. My Z7 will remain lead for this with my old lenses, but whatever I buy needs to be able to do this. I like weird and cheap glass, so that's a must-have for the system (it's largely why I sold the R6 which I got along with decently)

4. Video - I have 2 needs here, portable webcam for work and fixed video for my RC-related youtube channel. Latter is a 'pretty much anything with a flip/twist screen' will work, but for the webcam I greatly prefer a camera which supports direct USB webcam streaming instead of needing an app only my laptop (which has been a persistent frustration for me with the Nikon's in particular). I'd prefer this be a second/third body though so I can leave it setup most of the time. USB power/streaming is the best case here.

So where does that leave me?

I'm striking m43 entirely, Sony and Canon. Panasonic doesn't offer me a retro style body and I really like those due to decades of shooting manual focus film bodies. Too bad, because otherwise it's a great fit.

I'm sort of looping around to Fujifilm again. I've not owned a recent body (X-T2 was the newest) and if the continuous AF is noticeably better than the X-T2 it should work for me. I like the lenses, love the handling and the files are acceptable. Plus there's lots of neat glass available, which I missed when I sold off the X-T2 and X-T1 to go back to m43 & NIkon. You can get a Fuji to Nikon adapter with AF as well. The main thing is that the X-M5 + X-T5 combo covers most of my needs, and the rest could be covered by an X-H body. The Nikon alternative is slowly settling on Z7+DX body (either Z50II as a do-everything or a Z30+future FX body to cover video now and a second carry body long-term).

 

The Most Dangerous Activity

 

OM System OM-1, m.Zuiko PRO 12-40 f2.8 II

Trawling through my Archives is a dangerous game. But the results are increasingly predictable. I really like my output from my Nikon and Olympus shooting, and everything else rates as 'good but not quite great'. 

My OM-1 ownership was bookended by an A7RIV and  Canon R7. I actually shot some of my all-time best work on that A7RIV, but that really was from a single trip to Algonquin Park and some shots with the SLRMagic 18/2.8 on an absolutely amazing cold February morning. The rest of the work is good, but not great. A fair bit of that is simply colour profiling though. I don't love the default Sony colour rendering and never quite built a profile that overrode it when the light wasn't golden.

Same for the R7, just without the 'best work' part. A solid body of work, nothing spectacular. Ditto the R6, although I didn't shoot landscape seriously enough with it to really get to know it.  

The OM-1 work, as a whole, was simply more consistent. It is clear I did need to spend some more time with it as I wasn't getting quite what I wanted from the multi-shot modes and I think that's entirely a case of I didn't know them well enough.

The flip side is I also see the weaknesses in the files vs larger sensors. While I do love the results I got from the OM-1, I'd much rather work with my Z7 files and I like the Nikon results pretty much equally. 

So did the trawl through the archives tempt me to go m43? Yep. But not quite enough this time. 

OM-3 Is out - My thoughts

 OM-1, 40-150/4 Pro

OM System announced the OM-3 today, their new compact vintage styled camera.

And it's a brilliant camera overall. But it's got one screaming issue for me. The EVF is simply not up to snuff for a camera that costs more than $1500USD. It's an old 2.36M panel at an unacceptable low 0.69x magnification. Overall a worse spec than the E-M5II from a decade ago. 

The good? Excellent build, it's the cheapest stacked-sensor camera on the market by far, which makes it also incredible in terms of performance, there is literally nothing at its pricepoint which compares except a used OM-1. 

Control layout gives up a few items, but that's inherent to a size reduction. The new CP button allows direct access to all computational features (which I very much like), the on/off switch is still in a bad position (and I'm NOT giving up the Fn switch to fix that), JPEG dial is neat if you like that and like the OM-1II, the profiles are very tweakable even if not up to the real-time LUT system of Panasonic. Oh, and it shares the OM-1 battery and has a proper SD card slot (not in the battery compartment like the Zf/Zfc)

Cost is too high, as is usual for OM at launch. It will come down in 6 months. 

No grip options, which is a pity, a 2-part grip like the early E-M5's offered would have been great here. 

Also launched are updates of the 25/1.8, 17/1.8 and 100-400. The primes get sealing and the 17 loses the focus clutch, the 100-400 gets SyncIS but not saner pricing (as it's a Sigma rebadge and the Sigma version is half the price)

The verdict? A very solid effort and a great camera if you can live with the low-spec EVF that's the only real stripper aspect of the OM-3.

No, I don't plan on getting one. I skipped the E-M5 series after the MkII over the EVF and the OM-3 has the same EVF as those bodies. 

Future Landscape/Hiking/Video Gear Pondering - Full Frame Edition

 Sony A7RIV, FE 28-60

OK, so we covered crop options for Landscape/Hiking/Video uses.

Now let's do Full Frame.

First up is Canon. This would be a re-buy situation to some extent, as I just sold off my Canon gear. I'd definitely rebuy the RF100-400 and probably the 24/1.8 as well. I'd want the new 16-28 or the 14-35L and some mid-range option, plus a macro (likely the 100L in EF mount). Body would be either the R6mII or an OG R5. This would work pretty well for this, but I'd still struggle a bit with the lens line overall. Plus the limitations on assigning Bracketing to a button would annoy me just as it did on the R7 and R6. Possible only if I got a screaming deal on the body. R8 is an option for light carry here too (but limited/no IBIS and small battery).

Second is Sony. The most wide-ranging lens lineup, most lenses can be readily adaptable to my Z7 via the MegaDAP ETZ21 Pro adapter, and my partner still shoots an A7II. The downside is which body. The A7IV and A7RIV are really the two options here and I don't really gel with either of them. If forced, either would work adequately though, so I wouldn't be unhappy, just occasionally annoyed (especially with the Dust. Why hasn't Sony figured out sensor cleaning yet....). 

Third is of course Nikon. There's two real problems with Z mount for me. The focus is on long lenses, not wide (and mine is the opposite) and none of the bodies quite fit my needs or wants. The Zf and Z6III are acceptable though and I could probably get away with either adapting some FE lenses on the wide end or getting the 14-30. One annoyance here is it seems Nikon is dead set on ensuring you have every single possible different filter thread you could possibly own needed for their lenses. Only the Tamronkors have consistent thread sizing (the 17-28, 28-75 and 70-180 are all 67mm). 

The wild card is Panasonic. Over the last couple of years L mount has emerged as a real contender since finally introducing PDAF and addressing the AF issues for action shooting. They're still not top-tier AF, but they are at least as good as the non-stacked sensor Nikons. Plus the lens options are excellent and pricing is aggressive. The S5II covers my needs for a 24MP hiking body, and I can easily and relatively inexpensively put together a kit of 20-60, 100-400, 100 macro and 1-2 f1.8 primes, and every single lens on that list has 67mm filter threads. The bodies are very customizable, the S9 works as a light carry/B-cam and I have access to the top-tier Sigma lenses if needed (plus Leica if I want to be insane). The only real lack is high-MP options, and they're there just not cheap. The S1R update however should drop prices of the original and that would give me a 47MP option for tripod shooting. Plus the ability to load LUT's and apply to JPEG's gives the possibility of my post workflow dropping dramatically (you can convert LR presets to LUT's, then load onto the S5II, the S9 and the upcoming S1RII). Also the S5II costs as little as a Zf, except it includes the brilliant little 20-60mm in the package (and often adds the 50/1.8 for a very small upcharge). Get the 2 lens kit (20-60+50), add a Sigma 100-400 and the tiny and excellent 100/2.8 macro and I'm set. I could add the 18/1.8 later for a native fast UWA too. 

End result, Panasonic seems to cover most of the requirements. Nikon is #2, Sony and Canon both viable if the right deal is found. Clear leader, but unlike in Crop, none of the options actually fail out. 

Future Landscape/Hiking/Video Gear Pondering - Crop Edition

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

I've been thinking more and more about how I build out my gear. 

 That's got me considering the possibility of a different system alongside the Z7, rather than just going all-in on Nikon.

One of the obvious options here is Fuji. While I nave a very mixed history with them, the X-T1's and X-T2 were great cameras to work with aside from the AF issues I encountered with the 55-200. The X-H2 actually has quite good ergonomics (no Chiclets) and the X-T5 reverts back to a more X-T1/X-T2 style body rather than the larger X-T4's more hybrid-oriented setup. Plus the lens lineup is solid, including lots of interesting 3rd party lenses. Fuji is the one maker other than Nikon which will give you a traditional UI and a dual-dial UI in roughly similar bodies. 

The downsides are the AF is at best rivalling my OG Z7, Fuji's been breaking stuff on firmware and that simply put, 40MP APS-C struggles at higher ISO's and many of the most interesting Fuji lenses don't play well on the 40MP bodies. I honestly wish the X-T5 had stayed at 26MP (for the X-H2, I'd just get the 26MP X-H2S if I decided it was an issue for that body). 

The more I look at Fuji, the more I realize that while another X-T body would be lots of fun, it's not as well suited to my other uses. I need decent higher ISO for dark woodland shots when hiking, and want decent AF-C for wildlife grab shots, again while hiking. Plus Fuji is very nearly the only option without built-in Focus stacking (they do offer high-res multishot, but it's 20 frames instead of 8 on other systems due to the X-Trans filter pattern)

Fuji's lens line is also pretty inconsistent, the changes in design style over the 13 years of its existence leads to a lens line where different era's of lenses render differently and you only sometimes can cover each slot in your kit with a lens that behaves as you want. That said, a XF 16-50, 70-300 o 100-400 and an 8/3.5 would be a good hiking kit. No point in buying a macro since there's no automated focus stacking/bracketing so I could just adapt my current Macro's as both work well on crop bodies. 

The next crop offering I could entertain is of course m43. Again a system I have a LONG history with, being an early adopter with the G1 back when it was literally the only mirrorless camera in existence. It's possible I can get a pretty good deal on another OM-1 kit (and I did rather like that setup for the most part), but the kicker is the second/backup body. Lens selection has gotten somewhat better with all the manual 3rd party lenses now so I can say the 'System of One' comments I had are now really limited to the body. The OM-5 is just too little body for me, literally. The complaints are tiny battery/tiny EVF. If it was cheaper, I'd be more interested. But on February 6th OM System will announce a new body, known to be the OM-3, which will be some sort of Retro body, clearly a compact one and is largely expected to be essentially an original OM-1 in a new case, but with less decontenting than the OM-5. I'm guessing good finder/small battery unless they decide to bring back the BLN-1 last seen on the E-M5II, or manage to squeeze in the OM-1 battery (props if they do). I know I can quickly put together a lens system that works for me here so this is very on the radar. The multi-shot modes make up for the IQ limitations, when I need more than it can deliver at low ISO's, I can almost always multishot my way out of the situation. 

The biggest challenge with OM System is complexity. The OM-1 was not a camera where I could ignore the camera's complexity and just shoot, I found myself needing to engage the complexity constantly due to the need to take advantage of multi-shot to get the IQ I wanted. 

The next offering is Sony. That's a Nope for a cropper for me. I dislike all the Sony APS-C bodies and for some reason they refuse to stuff their current top-end cropper into an A7 body and make the obvious A7000. The lens lineup is inconsistent, but generally comprehensive. In other words you can usually get the lens you need in a given focal length, but it probably renders and handles differently than your other lenses unless one of the 3rd party options (notably Sigma or Viltrox) matches up exactly to your needs. 

Canon comes next. I mostly liked the R7 and only really sold it because I had the R6 and needed the 100-400. But I'd probably prefer to wait to see what the R7mII looks like and even then suspect another R6 series would make more sense (even more so now with the new 16-28/2.8 out). Canon makes solid crop bodies, but the combination of good and inexpensive FF bodies make their croppers a hard sell except the R50 as a webcam/b-cam. Lens selection is a bit of an issue, but so many of the inexpensive FF lenses work well on APS-C that it's less of one that most think. 7Artisan 12/2.8 II, 18-150 and 100-400 would be the working set here most likely.

And finally there's Nikon. The new Z50II is actually a pretty decent camera, with very good AF and video, but lacks IBIS for some reason (and it's not body size since the competition does it in smaller bodies). For some reason the older Zfc is still $50CAD more than the newer body despite the latter being higher performance in all regards. The Zfc is kinda neat, but I'd think I'd probably go Z30 if I didn't go Z50II, it's by far the cheapest option, performs identical to the Zfc and while it lacks a viewfinder, it's a viable camera for pure LCD shooting, something I haven't really had since I sold my last X-A1. Since my Z7 can be a pretty good APS-C camera already, any of the Z DX bodies could pair as the low-end in a 2 body split, albeit I'd probably not want the OG Z50 if only because of the lack of the vari-angle LCD, which I'd really want in my second body since the Z7 is also tilt-only. 

When I work through this, really only 2 crop options make any real sense. m43 and Nikon. And I already have a good Nikon crop body in the Z7. So It doesn't make a lot of sense to switch things up. 

Z7 Gear Plans

 

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

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

Adapters:

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

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

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

Lenses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Thoughts on 'Soul' in Cameras and Lenses

 

Nikon Z7, Z 40mm f2.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Updates

Canon EOS R6, RF 16mm f2.8, 3-shot/1 stop bracket to HDR

Well, after 13 months, the R7 is gone. That's still a recent record for me to keep a camera, and I for once didn't switch systems. I'm still all-in on RF, and now solely on FF. I also sold off my EF-S 10-18 STM, TT Artisan 25/2 APS-C and of course the RF-S 18-150 was a kit with the R7 so it went in with it. 

The R7 got sold because I needed a good longer telephoto option more than I needed a backup body. So it went in to trade for an RF 100-400. The RF 100-400 is slow (f5.6-8), but tiny, lightweight, shockingly sharp and with outstanding close focus. It is an ideal bugging lens, can take a TC and long enough for occasional airshow/bird/wildlife photography. 

 I also added the wee RF 16/2.8 a few weeks ago, giving me a small and surprisingly good UWA for the R6.

This makes my kit the following:

R6

16/2.8, 24/1.8 IS Macro, EF 50/1.8 STM, EF 70-200/2.8 L IS v1, RF 100-400/5.6-8 and an adapted Nikon-mount Tamron 90mm f2.8 AF Macro (plus all my old Nikon MF glass if I decide to pull it out of storage)

I will still like to have a second body, but that will be either adding an R8 for light carry, or demoting the R6 to backup and adding an R5 or R6II to maintain battery commonality. Both options are viable (even together in the long term)

In terms of lenses, the next priorities for me really will be a fast 35mm and either the 85/2 IS Macro or the EF 100/2.8 L IS Macro, so I can go all-in on native or EF lenses for my common work and get a real replacement for the R7/RF24 combo. For the 35, it will probably be either the RF 35/1.8 IS Macro or a used Sigma 35/1.4 Art in EF, not sure which as I'd like both the size of the RF and the speed of the Sigma. Beyond that I'd like to add the RF 14-35/4L and RF 24-105/4L to round out a zoom-based hiking kit. The RF 14.x Extender is also on the to-acquire list. I might add the RF15-30 & RF24-105STM as interim/ultra-light options. 

I also finally started to add UHS-II cards to my arsenal, we'll see if I even notice the difference. Not a lot of stuff I do really stresses the buffer on my R6. 

Random Gear Thoughts

 

Canon EOS R7, RF-S 18-150 IS STM

The photo above is from probably the best midsize walkaround combo I've ever owned. The combo of size, focal length range and effective crop capability of the lens and sensor are superb. Essentially it's a 29-300 in one lens, if I crop to 20mp m43 format for the long end (which is very doable on that sensor as it has the same pixel density as the OM-1). 

The RF-S 18-150 has been a surprising gem, and I've also shot a fair bit of video with it, as I have a non-Photography youtube channel that's been shot exclusively with the R7 since June. I will be testing out the R6 as a B-cam for it, but the R7 will remain the main video camera since it's got somewhat better sorted video controls (Video is NOT on the mode dial, but a position on the power switch, allowing easier switching, although that also means I occasionally accidentally put it in video mode instead of stills. The R6mII's separate and dedicated switch is the best setup of the lot). The close focus and good sharpness of the 18-150 has proved quite useful for my video needs in addition to being a good stills lens.

Don't get me wrong, it's not L glass, but it does punch above its weight as a kit lens and delivers quite acceptable results for the way I use my images. 

Overall the RF system is proving to be a nice mix of capability for me. While not perfect, and definitely lacking in 3rd party AF options, the 1st party native lenses fit my needs pretty well and are IMHO better selected than Nikon's, the mix of bodies is good at the low/mid-range (the weak spot IMHO is the R3, which isn't really competitive vs the A1/A9mIII/Z8/Z9 competition). One very nice aspect is how seamless the EF integration is, it makes using adapted EF lenses extremely seamless. I've done adaptation of AF SLR lenses on Fuji, m43, Nikon and Sony and the only comparable experience was Nikon E lenses on Z (and I found the older mechanical aperture lenses to be less nice to adapt, although generally capable). 

Speaking of L glass, my cheap 70-200L has had a new lease on life on the R6. While it was quite good on the R7, especially if stopped down, it did not wow me. That's largely because a 20-ish year old optical design and the R7's very high pixel density were not a great combo if I was looking for top notch performance. On the much lower density R6 sensor however the 70-200L moves from quite good to excellent and I've gotten a selection of shoots that I am absolutely loving with that combo. 

I also added the RF 24/1.8 IS Macro to my bag, providing a wide angle option for the R6 and a walkabout prime for the R7. It's quite a good lens and I'm liking it so far, although I've not used the macro focusing much yet. I do need an UWA for the R6 though, and will also need to add a second EF to RF adapter so I can run my 10-18 on my R7 and my 70-200L on my R6 at the same time. Probably will go for the control ring version to get that extra control point for the R6/70-200L combo. 

2024 Update and 2023 Review

Canon EOS R6, EF 70-200/2.8L Mk1

It's been a while, usually I post a wrap up and next goals in January. This year life interfered and I was far too busy and focused on non-Photography stuff in December, January and February to update.

I had 3 goals for 2023, and achieved one of them.

The goals were:

1. Take 10,000 images with one camera (Failed)
2. Take 2 major photo outings per quarter (Failed)
3. Get my Fred Miranda Like to Post ratio over 60% (Succeeded at just shy of 62%)

The first was a stretch goal and I'd commented that I'd be happy enough if I got to over 5000 images on the R7, which I did succeed, as I ended the year at 5600 images on the camera. That's been somewhat unusual for me given my low rate of shooting and system switching. Combined with ~2500 on the OM-1, I shot around double the number of images in 2023 as I did in 2022.

The second failed very simply because I was far too busy in Q4 and as a result only had one outing. 

The third succeeded, and in fact I'd hit it by mid-year. 

 So for 2024, what are my goals?

1. Shoot 10,000 images without changing camera systems. 

2. Take 7 major photo outings in the year
3. Get my Fred Miranda Like to Post ratio over 66%

And yes, I still have the R7 and it will continue to see regular use, although it's somewhat been downgraded to my video/second/small body recently as I just added an R6 to my bag. The R6 addresses my main usage complaint with the R7 (AF tracking against busy backgrounds is frustrating) and adds a second body for situations where I don't want to swap lenses. I will need a second EF adapter for the best config, since that would be the EF-S 10-18 on the R7 and the EF 70-200L on the R6, both of which need an adapter. 18-150 on the R7 and 70-200L on the R6 will likely be the standard combo for now.

Regarding gear, I plan to slowly add more FF lenses now that I have an FF body again, I need a flash as well, and also a new tripod as my most used one was in my Jeep when it was stolen last December, which is a large part of why I failed goal 2 for 2023. 

Ideally I'd like to exit 2024 still shooting the R6/R7 combo. That would be something of a record for me, with one camera then being at 18+ months of ownership and the second at 10 months. I do plan on concentrating on glass for now, filling out my system. 

Be Careful of Cheaping Out?

 

Canon R7, EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM

Thom Hogan recently wrote an article called Be Careful of Cheaping Out

I read it, and think it's a pretty problematic take on things. He has some valid points, but is starting from some really bad assumptions about both user intent and budget.

He starts off addressing 3rd party batteries. Yes, most of them are trash, but that doesn't invalidate the claim that 1st party batteries are wildly overpriced. Thom is overly accepting of claims that the price of them is driven by testing and design work. To be blunt, that argument holds no water based on my experience with Electric-powered RC aircraft. RC batteries are pushed much harder than camera batteries, tested far more and cost a small fraction of what camera batteries do. The big brands are not testing more, they're milking for profit. 

The flip side is that he's not wrong in claiming the 3rd party options are mostly cheap trash sold for too much money as well. So it makes sense to buy 1st party even if you are getting ripped off. There's a small number of quality 3rd party options finally starting to show up and I suspect that once a brand or two establishes themselves with a reputation for quality, the camera brands are going to be very unhappy with battery sales.

He gets into cards next, where he seems that users are buying or keeping more reasonably priced cards instead of buying the fastest cards which maximize the performance of the body. And he's not wrong in why you should buy fast cards, if you want the body to perform at its max ability, you need to buy the expensive fast cards. However many people simply don't push their cameras hard enough for this to matter. I personally still use top-end UHS-1 cards as I simply don't run into speed issues with them. I'll upgrade when card performance becomes a limiter for my work or I need new cards for some other reason. Why am I going to buy $200+ cards when I get the performance I need from $25 cards?

The same goes for lenses. Who cares that I'm using a 70 year old lens that wasn't a top performer back then. The real question is 'does the lens deliver the results I am looking for?' not 'am I using the best possible lens?'. Yeah, the Nikkor 24-70/4 S does technically beat the pants off most of the older options in that range, prime or zoom, but it's also boring. The rendering of many of the older/cheaper options can be more interesting, plus they are cheaper and thus more friendly to occasional use. That lets users buy lenses they may only use occasionally and don't want to invest big bucks in (like my recent 70-200L acquisition).

The one spot that Thom was dead on about was the one he only mentioned in passing. That's the tendency for newer photographers to buy cheap crappy tripods, then upgrade in single steps as they discover how bad the unit they bought is. Today, with plenty of relatively inexpensive decent tripods, there's no reason not to go all the way to a good Sirui or similar unit rather than buying cheap junk. This is the one case where penny wise is often pound foolish. The other aspect here is that tripods are not one size fits all. I own 3 currently and use them based on application. My Manfrotto 055XPROB's are for heavy lenses and when I need the steadiest option, my 290's are for when I need light weight and mobility and my Platypod for odd locations and when I want to strap things together or hard mount to a surface. 

At the end of the day, most users buying a $4000USD body are not using the body to its full capacity. They buy it because they want it or it has some feature they need. But they also get to use it with the lenses, cards and batteries that they choose and the only time there are wrong answers are when they are complaining about performance AND that the performance in question is being limited by their equipment choices. 

My First L Lens

 

Canon R7, EF 70-200L f2.8 IS USM

I've never actually owned a fast telezoom before. I've generally prioritized size & weight over a fast aperture for my zoom lenses, especially telezooms which are naturally larger & heavier than wide & normal zooms, and for what I usually shoot that is definitely the correct choice. However sometimes you just find the right deal at the right time and I did with this 70-200L. 

The main use for a fast telezoom for me is environmental nature shots in shaded forest, the best solution I ever had for that was the m.Zuiko 75/1.8 (150mm-e), but it wasn't very flexible since it was a prime. The m.Zuiko 40-150/4 Pro offered the flexibility (and was the fastest AF telezoom I'd bought previously) and the size/weight, but had no TC compatibility and still was lacking a bit of lens speed in some situations. 

What I acquired is an original 70-200L f2.8 IS USM with a touch of Schneideritis (outer edge element separation in glued lens elements) that does not impact IQ. This gives me a fast, TC-compatible lens ideal for use in lower light situations like shady forests, at the cost of a frankly lousy MFD (1.4m) and a bunch of weight (almost 1.5Kg). It's a very situational lens and likely will stay home much of the time, but it is a good lens to have available in case, especially at the incredibly low price I paid for it due to the Schneideritis. With a 1.4x TC on the R7, it's also got enough reach for airshow and limited birding use, so I will have to add a TC to the kit as well. The main reason I would not normally look at a lens like this is it simply costs too much for something that's very situational for me, so getting one at a steep discount addresses the main downside of the lens for me. 

It will be interesting to work with this lens, as it is so different from my usual choices in this focal length range. It will definitely stay home a fair bit due to the weight, but when I do haul it, I do expect to get shots I'd otherwise miss due to lack of light.

It also brings out just how good the experience of adapting EF lenses has been so far on the R7. I've used fully coupled adapters on m43, F and E/FE mounts and always found significant downsides. m43 was just terrible AF, even with a faster body like an E-M1 series, plus big lens/little camera handling issues. On F mount the FTZ adapter worked seamlessly with the 70-300E, but was a little annoying with older lenses, and the physical design made handling suck (the newer FTZII addresses the handling issue by dropping the useless integrated tripod mount that caused the handling issues) and in Sony the integration of mechanical aperture lenses was pretty meh (plus there were only a few SSM/SAM lenses with decent AF), and going with an EF to E adapter resulted in inconsistent performance.

With the EF to RF adapter, the experience so far has been seamless, although I'm only using native Canon glass for coupled adaptation (my Tamron 90mm is uncoupled, being a Nikon lens on a mechanical F to EF adapter). Aside from being a little large, I've had zero issues using the EF-S 10-18 IS STM, the EF 50mm f1.8 STM or the EF 70-200L f2.8 IS USM on the R7 with the standard Adapter. It's worth also noting that Canon actually makes 4 different adapters. There's an inexpensive standard adapter, a Control Ring version which has an additional control ring to substitute for the control ring that's on the RF lenses and not on EF lenses, a filter version which accepts a filter holder (available with either a polarizer or variable ND) and a Speedbooster, marketed for the Super35 cine bodies but which works fine on the RF-S bodies as well. My recommendation is to get the Control Ring adapter unless you have some reason to want one of the others. I have the standard one and plan to add the Control Ring version to my kit later in the fall. 

First Goal Down

 

Brennans Creek, Killaloe, ON

Canon R7, Canon EF-S 10-18 IS STM on EF->RF Adapter

I've got 3 goals for 2023, defined in my 2022 Wrap-up and 2023 Goals post.

As of yesterday, I've achieved Goal #3, to get my Like to Post ratio on FredMiranda up to 60%. 

Since image posts tend to get a lot more likes than gear arguing, this goal was set to push me towards more focus on the images I'm making and less on the gear I'm making those images with. In doing so I discourage my own chasing the dragon and am less likely to take a break from FM because I'm annoyed. 

This one was admittedly set while I was shooting m43, where the low-traffic m43 image threads meant I'd usually get 3-4 likes on a good image. Now with Canon and the higher-traffic threads I'll usually see 10-15 likes per post (Sony was even higher, at 15-20 for a good image). I'm going to keep pushing on this as I might actually be able to get close to my 2022 goal of a 70% ratio. 

Regarding the other two goals

1. 10,000 images on one camera. I'd just broken 3,000 images on the OM-1 when I sold it, of which about 2500 were shot in 2023. I'm now just under 2500 on the R7 after around 1 month of ownership. I think the overall goal is achievable with the R7 as I expect to exceed 3000 images in the next couple weeks. Based on current trends I expect the R7 will be the first camera I've owned in a long while to exceed 5000 images and I'm on track for 10,000 this year.

2. Two major photo outings per quarter. I'm on track for this, although I just barely made it in Q1. This is going to be easy to maintain through the end of Q3, but Q4 and the late fall doldrums will present a challenge. 

Overall, the R7 continues to be a success for me. I enjoy shooting with it, and I increasingly am looking for reasons to use it, which is a big win.