Zfc at 6 Months

 Nikon Zfc, 7Artisans 35mm f1.4 APS-C

I bought the Zfc in April, so I've now owned it for 6 months. 

I've not used it as much as I'd hoped, but that's not its fault. In fact when I've been shooting, it's definitely been enjoyed, enough that it drove my hard look at APS-C working for me as a primary system meant in terms of system choice (see my recent posts pondering a serious swap to Fuji, to make Zfc style bodies my primary set).

Overall, I'd hoped the Zfc would be a digital FM10 and it has delivered spectacularly on that promise. The Zfc is similar in size (slightly taller and thinner) and weight (about 25g heavier) to the FM10. Throw a roll of film in the latter and weight is basically the same. Some have complained about build, well frankly a ~450g camera of this size is always going to feel as it does, somewhat light in build. That's due to the density more than anything else.

But can it be a main body? Maybe. I need to spend some time shooting with the Zfc and zooms to validate that. It's 100% a capable EDC body for me, but it lacks IBIS and has a notably worse EVF than the Z7, as well as the worse battery life. Given the relatively small size of the Zfc, I would need to move to a native zoom option (probably one of the 16-50/2.8 options). In terms of capability and IQ, aside from IBIS, it gives nothing up to the Z7 in DX mode. It's slower than the D7500, but trades AF speed for accuracy, and of course has usable handheld live view. 

Now that I have the X-T3, the Zfc's biggest challenge to staying in my bag is the system split issue. I don't have much in the way of native Z glass (1 AF lens and 3 manual lenses) so swapping it out for a Fuji body to complement the X-T3 starts to make sense, or even for Fuji lenses, getting me down to 2 bodies total. But the flip side is with the FTZ it does function as a backup body to the D7500, in particular putting the 10-20VR on the Zfc + the larger lenses on the D7500 works well. 

Overall, I like the Zfc the most of the 4 Nikon's I've had over the last 18-20 months, but still it's not quite love. 

The Z7 - Will It Survive?

Z7, Z 28/2.8 SE

 

My Z7 has one screaming issue, it's WELL used, almost 320k actuations on the clock. The main annoyance from this is the rubber port covers are swollen and do not close correctly, but I also have to remain concerned that the body will just die on me at some point. 

I've gotten my money's worth, the body was cheap (the cheapest of my 3 current bodies despite having a FAR higher original price and being actually in the middle in terms of design age, the D7500 is the oldest design, the now 5 year old Zfc the youngest, although both my Zfc and D7500 are very recent production, the Zfc bought new and the D7500 in mint condition with low miles and recent serial)

I was out recently shooting with it and it was behaving oddly, overriding my aperture settings in Aperture Priority mode (very much not what you want). Some research indicates this isn't unheard of on the Z6 & Z7, but nobody has been able to point at a setting which fixes this, only really to ensure you don't get in a situation where the auto ISO system wants to go to a lower ISO than it can select and decides to mess with you. 

That frankly makes me concerned that the Z7 may fail me when I am actually relying on it, which brings me back to it not being able to be the core of my system. I had never intended it to be anything other than a 'play' body for my manual lens collection, plus a secondary body to whatever I ran as primary, but right now I don't have a true primary body, just an EDC body (Zfc), an action body (D7500) and a adaptation body (Z7). All 3 could to some extent function as my main body with my current lenses, although the Zfc is the weakest here (as I have no native zooms and it doesn't handle nearly as well with adapted zooms as the Z7) and the D7500 arguably the best (since my core set of zooms are all F mount and align pretty well on the D7500).

The reality is that out of the now nearly 4000 images I've shot this year, maybe 100 were on the Z7. I have kicked my own pants and gone out and shot over the last few weeks. But I did it with the D7500 and the Zfc aside from one sole outing with the Z7 recently (from which the image above results)

So the Z7 and a few full-frame lenses that I've either not used at all this year or have an APS-C alternative in my current kit went in and an X-T3 and Sigma 30/1.4 came home. 

The goal here is both to sample Fuji without really impacting the kit I use and to gain access to Fuji's far better selection of APS-C lenses. Mid term, the Zfc is on the chopping block as it's in a lot of ways just a less good X-T3 and the only real thing it offers right now is the flip-out screen which works better on my video setup, but less well everywhere else. The D7500 and its core kit will stay for now, if nothing else it is a complete standalone kit which works well alongside both Z and Fuji X mounts.

I'd been leaning towards another XC35/2 as the first lens, but they only had the more expensive XF35, or a used Sigma 30/1.4 in stock. I went for the latter as it cost barely more than the XC35/2 and look forward to trying it out. 

Just Go Shoot

 

D7500, Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 Macro N-AF

I've been massively rabbit holing around what gear should I get for the future.

Then I ran a search on images taken in 2026.

1856 images. Mostly on the D7500 and Zfc. 

I don't need new gear. I need to actually go and make images. End of Story. I cannot justify spending money on gear I don't use. 

The answer is to get out there with these cameras I do have, make images and enjoy the process. And I need to quit focusing on anything else. The images are the goal, not having the perfect gear bag. 

If I buy something new, it needs to be because I identified a gap while in the field, not at my desk pondering and prevaricating about GAS. 

Just. Go. Shoot. 

Quick Z5IIC Thoughts

D7500, AF-S Nikkor 10-20mm VR G DX

 

In short, it's not really the light carry camera I wanted, but it's an OK effort. Users aren't going to be unhappy with it in reality aside from 1 item Nikon definitely got wrong.

The item is the LCD. It shares the 3" 1.04m dot unit that the Z DX bodies all have. This is adequate, but not really what you want on an EVF-less body that isn't at the bottom of the price range like the Z30 (which has the exact same LCD). Nikon should have priced it $50 higher and re-used the much better 2.1m dot unit from the Z5II. 

Otherwise the only real complaints are the name and the size, this is the Z3 in all but name, it is exactly to the Z5II as the Z30 is to the OG Z50. Same basic camera, no EVF (the Z30 had a couple other changes, but that's just because the Z50 had a couple bad decisions in terms of USB port and LCD articulation that were corrected on the Z30 and Zfc). Nikon unwisely chose to ape Sony's naming convention instead of sticking to their own and got designation salad as a result. 

In terms of size, while the smallest FX stills camera in the Z line, this is still a chonky boi at 600g, compare to its closest competitor, the Panasonic S9, and it's well over 100g heavier and notably larger (but with a MUCH better grip). You can actually get an S9+40/2 lens within 30g of the Z5IIC's bare weight. 

And yes, this is 100% a shovelware camera, it's a Z5II with the EVF chopped off, a cheaper LCD, one card slot and a lower spec shutter (1/4000 max). But the shovel contents are damned good aside from the bargain-bin LCD, so while entirely a low-effort release, it is actually a pretty excellent camera. Anyone who ends up with one won't be disappointed in anything except the high weight and size for its class and Nikon's poor and overly clustered selection of small 1st party lenses, but adding the Viltrox 14mm and 20mm at the wide end and the 7Artisans 75mm or Viltrox 85mm f2 EVO at the long end to the 26, 28 and 40 from Nikon will give a solid small prime selection for it. I'd skip the zooms, there are enough smallish zooms, but aside from the 24-50 (which I do not recommend, poor handling & reliability) nothing truly tiny to fit this body. 

I'd consider this if I was still willing to go in for small low-MP FX EDC options. As it is, I'd have preferred any refresh to the current Z DX line (Z30II or ZfcII) or either the rumoured Z70 or a Z5IIx shovelware camera (Z5II with Z7II sensor).

More Gear Musings

Zfc, AF-S Nikkor 85mm f1.8 G

Here's a few scattered thoughts on gear and my future plans.

First off, the D7500 is getting the most use, but it's definitely the only one of my 3 current bodies I'd consider parting with. That's because it's neither a viable EDC (Zfc is that, Z7 can sorta do it with the right lenses) nor does it have compatibility with most of my lenses (no metering with manual lenses, can't mount Z or adapt anything I own). It's just fun within its limits and while actually the slowest of my 3 bodies at 8fps max (the other two are capable of 9-11fps) it's the fastest no-limits bodies (8fps with no gotchas vs 5fps with no gotchas). If I had to pick just one body, the Z7 would win (most compromises, but also the most flexible), with the Zfc second. 

I do enjoy the D7500 and don't see parting with it anytime soon as it is fun to shoot with and I like the results. Like the Z7, it's also not really worth enough on a trade-in to bother parting with. 

What I'd like to see from Nikon is an indication that they are committed to support Z DX for the long term before I invest further in that direction. I'm not confident I'll see that from them though (and few are). Having more than 1 EXPEED7 body would go a long way here, as would a couple more lens releases that aren't consumer shovelware or a 'why would I pay that much for that little' lenses like the Z DX 35/1.7 MC (which is a very good macro/normal, but at the cost that I can buy a lot of 3rd party glass for the same cost). 

The reality is that I don't actually need more than is already available. My bodies mostly cover my needs and where I hit limits, they remain limits that a Z8 would solve. In terms of glass, as long as I'm willing to adapt (and I mostly am), I have what I need already or it is available. I simply don't want to invest in a dead-end system, even if it's one that actually does meet my needs. 

I did get out and do some city shooting with the Zfc over the weekend, both with the 7Artisans 35mm f1.4 II and the 85/1.8G, mostly bugging with the latter, we still have flowers and bees around. Had a fair bit of fun with it and I'm enjoying both lenses. Still need to get some time with the Z7, I've been ignoring it of late. 

Regarding future system options, I'm looking for two things really. A system with a future, I do not want to spend some years investing in a system just to have it killed off (as we've seen this year for Pentax DSLR's and effectively for Panasonic m43) and which delivers reasonably compact, reasonably priced and reasonably good IQ, plus the combo of a solid set of zooms for my hiking needs and some weird, interesting and cheap glass for playing around with. Fuji delivers all of that, Sony does technically, but I dislike their APS-C bodies, Nikon fails on system with a future for DX right now, while Canon fails the weird, interesting & cheap glass test and their APS-C is also on life support (although it is expected they will actually get 2-3 new APS-C bodies next year). OM System is also technically an option, but their stuff is hard to get these days and overly expensive, especially since used gear is hard to find now. A pity since the new Pen is finally a light carry option at a reasonable price for its spec (the OM-5's are way too expensive for what they deliver and the OM-3 suffers from barely adequate viewfinder in expensive body syndrome). OM System does have the nice computational features the others lack though, 

So the play now becomes stick with Nikon and hope they continue to support DX in an adequate manner, and consider switching to Fuji in 2027 if Nikon continues to ignore DX entirely. 

The reality is my current gear largely suffices for my needs, and I can address the real gaps mostly by buying glass and if I need to push the edges of capability, there's still the Z8. 

The DX Kit is Complete - For Now

 

Nikon D7500, Nikkor 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 VR G

I picked up a couple more F mount lenses on Friday, which leaves me with an essentially complete hiking kit for my D7500, and a mostly complete one for the Z7.

What were the lenses?

The 10-20mm f4-5.6 DX VR AF-P and the 80-400mm f4-5.6 VR G AF-S

That gives me a solid 3/4 lens kit for the D7500 covering 15-600mm effective, with the 24-85VR subbing for my Tamron 17-50 in this case as it fills the gap between the 10-20 and 80-400 better, and a 3/4 lens kit for the Z7 covering 21-400mm (the Zeiss 21, 24-85VR and 80-400). In both cases the fourth optional lens is the Tamron 90mm Macro, although for regular close focus work (flowers, some bugging) the 80-400 does just fine. 

The 10-20 is tiny, surprisingly good optically and has VR, making it a good alternative to my go-to lens for years in this space, the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 HSM, which I've owned multiple copies of over the years. The Nikkor is the better of the two optically, and noticeably so, which I'd hope for being a 10+ year newer design, plus significantly smaller and lighter, but less well built. I'm impressed so far, and it's small enough to handle well on the Zfc. 

The 80-400G is everything I'd hoped the Sigma 100-400 would be on my A7IV last year, but without the disappointment I got from the Sigma. Both are sharp lenses, but the Nikkor is sharper, handles better, has better AF and the stabilization works well (which the Sigma didn't).

Collectively I spend slightly less for both lenses than that Sigma cost me last year. Shooting modern DSLR glass has a clear value advantage these days, especially if you choose lenses which adapt easily to mirrorless as I am currently doing (AF-S and AF-P lenses for Nikon, AF-I Nikkors also adapt well but generally only includes lenses I don't have a huge need for, while AF Nikkors lose AF). 

I still need a decent UWA zoom for the Z7, but I'm leaning towards the 16-35VR here. It's decent but unexceptional optically, but handles well, has VR and sells for very reasonable pricing. 

I'm currently planning to continue to build up my modern F mount collection. Great class, great prices. Sure, Z glass is almost always better, but it's also usually far more expensive than it is better (the 50's excepted, Nikon didn't really design an exceptional 50mm offering between the 50/1.2 AI-S and the Z 50/1.8 S, I'll probably skip the Nikkor 50's and just get a 58G if I find one for the right price), plus I'm really enjoying shooting the D7500, so I may add some more late-model DSLR's to the kit if I continue to enjoy the D7500 long-term. Notably a D850 and maybe a D500, the latter I've long wanted because of my longstanding love for the D200 and D300.

Why Buy a DSLR in 2026?

D7500, AF-S Nikkor 85mm f1.8

Why would somebody buy a DSLR in 2026? Especially a new or nearly new one. My D7500 was technically used, but as recent production and less than 1000 shots on it, it was functionally new. 

There's pretty much 3 reasons why you'd do so.

1. The Optical Viewfinder. Some people simply prefer this experience to an EVF, and there are advantages in some conditions, especially very bright conditions. 

2. The 'DSLR Experience'. Mirror slap, OVF blackout, nice chonky grips and amazing battery life even with tiny batteries. Shooting a DSLR is not quite the same as mirrorless and some folks just like the DSLR experience better.

3. Value. Simply put there are very few cases today where you get more value for the dollars spent from mirrorless than from DSLR's, especially if you want more than 5-6fps or a high performance APS-C body from somebody other than Fuji. The real exception here is high-MP but low speed landscape cameras, there are some real steals on 40+MP low-speed bodies in the A7RII and OG Z7, which cost similar to a used D800 or D810, but deliver Z8/A1 level resolution and even more DR, at the cost of mediocre AF and low practical FPS (neither of which is really a landscape camera need). 

For me it was really #3 driving things, and mostly because I wanted a faster body (7-8fps minimum without compromises) with APS-C level pixel density and at a cost similar to or lower than my Z5ii's sale value. 

Note this brings up that SLR mount lenses are even more of a value than the bodies these days, since many of them are fully functional on mirrorless via adapter (and arguably more functional given you can get IBIS with lenses whose SLR mounts did not offer that feature). I'm still primarily using and buying SLR mount lenses (mostly F mount) because of this. Great glass, now cheap. Yeah, often the native mirrorless lens is better technically than the older SLR mount lens, but the price difference and performance are also often at odds with each other. 

For the value driven photographer, there's often real benefits to staying in the DSLR ecosystems rather than moving to the latest and greatest mirrorless system. 

 

Kit Priorities

Sony A7RIV, FE 28-60

With my bodies set for now, what does that mean for lenses?

Priorities are as follows:

1. Telezoom. Looking at a 80-400G as my primary option here. This will be for hiking, airshow/aviation and some wildlife stuff. This was already on the to-acquire list prior to the body changeup

2. 35/1.8DX. I have a DX DSLR again, this must be in my bag. It's my must-have lens for DX DSLR's. 

3. DX UWA zoom. Got to complete the base DX DSLR kit, and this time it probably won't be a Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6. Not sure where I'll go on this, the Tamron 10-24 is a possibility, or maybe the Sigma 10-20mm f3.5. The Tamron is attractive for having VC and a focal length range that pairs well with a 24-xx FX zoom (like my 24-85VR) even on DX. That would give me a 3-lens stabilized kit with minimal overlap, or even a viable 2 zoom and a gap filling prime setup (with a 50-60mm prime) for hiking. 

In Z mount, I'll continue to build out my manual lens setup for the Zfc, I was also looking at adding a 3rd lens to my 28/40 pair for the Z7, but I think for now the 85/1.8G might suffice for that (albeit at a much larger size than say a TTArtisan 75/2). Further down adding some compact wide AF primes is on the list, notably the Viltrox 14/4 and the 9/2.8 and 15/1.7 APS-C wides for the Zfc, eventually I do see having a compact AF setup for the Zfc as well as a set of manual focus lenses. 

 

What Is Reach, Really?

Nikon Z5ii, AF-S Nikkor 300mm f4 D

What is reach? It's a rather misunderstood thing, way too often associated with the use of crop frame cameras, which is often correct, but not for the reasons that most think.

I usually talk about Pixels on Ducks to put a perspective on reach, because at the end of the day, reach is how many pixels you put on a given subject when shooting with a given focal length and subject/camera distance. What really matters in this regard in the camera is the pixel pitch, or how large the pixels are, as smaller pixels mean more pixels covered by the image projected onto the sensor by the lens, and that DOES NOT change regardless of the sensor size, only with the pixel pitch of said sensor. A 300mm lens projects the same sized image on the sensor so long as the subject is the same size and at the same distance (NB - this gets funky at very close ranges with Internal Focusing lenses, but that's because they lose that 'same focal length' property when focusing close, IF lenses and focus breathing are a post for another day, lets stick with wildlife-esque distances for the reach discussion, as those are most relevant). Note the image projection onto the sensor takes into account only subject size, lens focal length and subject/camera distance (actually distance to the nodal point of the lens optics), it does not at all care what size the sensor is.

Pixel pitch is the physical size of the sensor site/pixel (usually square, so only one dimension is given), pixel density is the number of pixels in a unit area, the two terms are functionally interchangeable, although fill factor also impacts pixel density. Fill factor is how much space there is between pixels as a ratio of pixel size and with modern microlens-topped sensors it's just about the same as effective pixel pitch thanks to the microlens  covering the unused space on the sensor and directly otherwise wasted light into the sensor site. For our uses in terms of reach, effective pixel pitch and pixel density are all we care about. 

For example, if you shoot a 300mm lens at an arbitrary duck at 15m from the camera on a 102MP 33x44mm camera (say the Fuji GFX100), a 61MP FF camera (say the A7RV) and a 26MP APS-C camera (say the Fuji X-H2s), and crop each resulting image down to the same pixel dimensions, the resulting image will be the same in terms of framing and resolution as all 3 sensors have the same pixel pitch (they are actually quite closely related sensors, which is why I used this specific set for comparison purposes).  

So why is crop associated with reach? For two reasons, one correct and one incorrect. The first is simply the focal length 'multiplier', which really isn't one, it just looks like one through the viewfinder. It's a crop of the projected image, not a multiplier of the lens focal length (that requires an optical teleconverter). 

The APS-C sensor is smaller and only sees a portion of the frame that the larger Full Frame sensor does. Going from FF as the baseline into a typical 1.5x crop APS-C you are cropping from that 300m of view into the equivalent of a 450mm lens on FF's field of view. But you are also losing overall resolution if the pixel pitch of each sensor is the same. Same size pixels, less sensor area = less overall pixels and less resolution as a result.

So what gives? Well typically crop sensors also have higher pixel density than their equivalent FF bodies. Go from my Z5ii to a D7200 and I'm still getting 24MP images, but now at the field of view that the 1.5x longer lens would have on the larger sensor camera. So in this specific case the D7200 has more reach than the Z5ii. That the crop sensor cameras have more reach than the larger sensor cameras is a general rule of thumb derived solely from them also having higher pixel density sensors, which is often, but not always true. In particular the 60-ish MP FF bodies (and 100MP Medium Format) all have pixel densities matching or exceeding 26MP APS-C sensors (most match, the new A7RVI exceeds due to the slightly higher density 67MP sensor vs the 26MP and 61MP sensors). 

The 25MP m43 sensors pretty much match the 40MP Fuji sensors for highest pixel density available today, with the 20MP m43 and 32.5MP Canon APS-C sensors next, then the 67MP FF sensor, then that set of Sony/Fuji sensors (26/61/102MP) and Canon 24MP (smaller 1.6x crop sensor and same resolution means slightly higher pixel density than 1.5x sensors), then the 24MP APS-C sensors, and then the 45-50MP FF sensors and Nikon's 20.9MP DX sensor, then everything else smaller. 

You'll note this mostly biases towards either crop (especially m43 where everything current is in the top two buckets) or high-MP FF. The ever so common 24-33MP FF bodies have pixel densities not seen in crop cameras in over a decade (10-14MP APS-C equivalents).

So if you want to put pixels on ducks (which usually also means you want a higher fps and good AF), and you don't have money for high-MP/good AF bodies like the Z8, R5 series, A1's or A7R's, then crop really is what you want for reach. Also if you want to minimize size by using shorter focal lengths, then m43 stands out.

And yes, there are also teleconverters. But TC's cost you light, they are not free. And coincidentally the very same physics applies to crop sensors, so a TC's cost in aperture (1 stop for a 1.4x, 2 stops for a 2x) is very close or identical to the total illumination loss from crop sensors (which closely matches the ISO noise performance tradeoff between formats). That's just over 1 stop for a 1.5x crop and 2 stops for a 2x crop (m43). Note simply cropping an FF image down to APS-C results in the same noise tradeoff as shooting APS-C (noise tracks total illumination of the sensor area used, so cropping is throwing away the extra light the larger sensor gets).

As a result, a TC on a lower pixel density sensor is pretty close to equivalent in results to the same lens without TC on a comparable crop sensor of the same resolution. 24MP FF + 1.4x TC is pretty close to functionally equivalent to 21-26MP APS-C. But TC's have other tradeoffs. First off on DSLR's especially the AF system takes a performance hit (and note on DSLR's the AF systems usually have similar projections between FF and crop, they just cover more of the image frame with AF points on crop, so the AF performance usually doesn't differ much between FF and crop, all other things being equal, ie same AF sensor, same lens aperture, same processing power backing it and same algorithms). On Mirrorless things are different because the image sensor IS the AF sensor, so the larger sensors feed more light to the AF system as well. TC's are also limited in lens compatibility so they are not a fix-all for reach issues on low pixel density cameras. Longer lenses or buying a higher pixel density camera are usually the better choice and when dealing with long lenses it's very often cheaper to buy the camera, especially when talking about faster telephoto primes which often cost multiple of even the most expensive FF pro camera, your typical fast 600mm prime will cost 50-100% more than what a Z9, A1II or R1 costs if buying new, let alone how much more they cost than a high-end crop body. 

 

My Brain Won - But Not in the Way I Feared

Fujifilm X-T2, XC 16-50 OIS II

No, I didn't get another X-T2 or even another Fuji, despite the image chosen. Yes, the Z5ii is gone. And I bought something I was not originally even considering. 

I've been mulling what exactly is the issue with the Z5ii driving my thoughts. because it's an incredibly good camera.

In short, pixel density is the issue with how the Z5ii fit into my kit. 

It was my best action camera in terms of AF, FPS and buffer, but it was also far lower pixel density than either the Z7 or the Zfc, limiting the reach, which is important when I simply don't own glass longer than 300mm. For landscape, it's only real advantage in the way I work over the Z7 is the screen articulation, and I can live without that, otherwise the IQ from the Z7 is simply better (better DR, more resolution, lower base ISO for long exposures). That limited its utility at exactly where it beat my other bodies sans investment in expensive glass to offset the lack of pixel density. And I'm all about inexpensive and interesting glass, not expensive glass. 

For everyday carry, both the Zfc and Z7 are smaller and lighter than the Z5ii (albeit only marginally so for the Z7). I don't use the Flexible Color Picture Controls since I just don't shoot JPEG at all, and if I did, I'd be shooting on the Zfc with my cheap & fun manual Chinese lenses, not on the Z5ii. Most of the Z5ii's EXPEED7 advantages are things I don't actually use in practice, although if you shoot events or people a lot with AF lenses, yeah, it's a beast. 

As I drove through the logic, I kept coming back to wanting a higher-end APS-C body. Really, I wanted similar pixel density to what I already had, Nikon NEF files, higher speed than the no-compromises speeds of the Zfc and Z7 (both are really 5fps bodies, albeit capable of faster with the EVF in slideshow mode), solid AF-C performance, and it can't be a brick because I don't carry bricks. 

Absent the last item, that really left me with the Z8/Z9 (way too expensive, too big), the D850 (slightly too expensive to get now, viable if I'd wait a bit, too big), the D500 (attainable if I could find one, slightly too big), the D7500 and D7200 (both hit on price, size and have enough speed, D7500 is a better speed body, D7200 has proper AI lens compatibility). Note that I own very few Z mount lenses, my core kit is F mount, and I do have screwdriver AF lenses. I'm not really worried about AI compatibility since both the Zfc and Z7 are better manual lens cameras than any Nikon DSLR. 

As it happened, for the actual DX options only the D7500 was available anyways, so that's what I got, plus I added a 85/1.8G AF-S as a workable short-tele when I want a bit more speed (both aperture and AF) vs my trusty Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 Macro. Worked out to a 1:1 trade for the D7500+85/1.8G into the Z5ii, which is reasonable value.

So now I have a DSLR in my kit again, for the first time since my old D300 died. Going to be interesting. Size/weight shouldn't be much of an issue, the D7500 clocks in at 20g more than the Z5ii, but 105g less than the Z5ii+FTZII. Batteries and cards are the same, so plenty of compatibility and the D7500 has far better battery life. Using an OVF will be interesting, it's been a while. But the body should play well with my other gear and let me run effective 2 body setups that actually lean better into what each body is good at (Zfc is small/light, Z7 is the pixel monster, D7500 is the long lens/speed body). The 85/1.8G is a lens I've long wanted to own, so adding that as a workable short tele for DX and portrait lens for FX should fit in well. 

Plus I now have a body with screwdriver AF compatibility, to make some of the more interesting inexpensive F lenses more usable (especially the 180/2.8D I've been eyeing for ages). 

As a walkabout kit, the Tamron 17-50+ 85/1.8G or Tamron 17-50+Tamron 90 macro will both work well. I'll no doubt get yet another 35/1.8DX and some sort of UWA and I'm already looking seriously at telephoto zoom options to give alternatives to the 300/4D.

 

Fuji Ponderings

Railroad Leftovers in Pontypool

Zfc, Tamron SP 17-50 f2.8

I continue to enjoy shooting the Zfc more than the Z5ii for everyday use and that continues to make me wonder if Nikon is really the right home for me and should I or should I not be shooting Fuji instead. 

The reality is the X-T3 or X-T5 is a better Zfc than the Zfc is, which is unsurprising as they are higher-end bodies and that's what gives them the advantage (better viewfinder, better build, etc). I do still need a light carry body though and the Zfc is better than the X-T30 series for that (better EVF, ISO dial instead of film sim dial). Yeah, the Zf is also a better Zfc, but it's comparatively huge and heavy (F3HP size & weight, slightly larger and heavier than either the Z5ii or the Z7) and I prefer having something more akin to a FM2n (and the X-T5 is very close to the FM2n in size and weight, 10mm less wide, but otherwise near identical). 

On the flip side, no Fuji can match the IQ of my FX bodies, nor the AF system of the Z5ii, but I don't actually lean on that very hard. And I definitely prefer the Nikon NEF files I get from my Nikons, at least to the older 24MP and similar Fuji files. Of course RAW converter performance with X-Trans continues to improve and what was marginal in 2020 Lightroom is actually pretty decent when I run my old X-T2 files through Pixelmator Pro now. 

Fuji on the other hand offers more selection in terms of classic UI cameras, a consistent APS-C lens line (and one far larger than even the entirety of the Z mount line, aside from a generally weaker long tele selection). And quite frankly, a lens line (1st and 3rd party) which generally is both good and small(ish) which I prefer to the larger and tending to expensive Nikon Z lenses. 

The Gripping hand? Fuji is very late in its current 5th Gen X-Trans platform and expected to launch a new generation in September, likely with an X-T6, and new Fuji bodies are rather overpriced for their somewhat ageing performance as Fuji has not discounted older bodies much at all (there's a couple of $100-off deals right now but that's it). 

It's honestly annoying to be in my head right now. I wish I could just buckle down and shoot with what I have rather than getting burned in 'what would be a better choice'. 

I did a pretty deep dive on comparative value and I could swing a basic X-T5 setup for what I have right now. But at the same time I do see some issues, the X-T5 gets roasted for middling build quality (notable since both of my FX bodies have notably excellent build) and the AF system. The reality is that aside from the lens system (which I can adapt), the UI and some extra (and unneeded by me) speed is all the X-T5 brings to the table over the Zfc/Z7 combo. 

I'll stand pat for now, and consider maybe trading in the Z5ii for more glass. 

 

Slowing the Churn

Wight Island Bridge

Zfc, Tamron SP 17-50mm f2.8 

Took the Zfc along on a Sunday fishing trip, shot a moderate amount, all with the Tamron 17-50 on the FTZII. This lens works well if you don't let it bounce off MFD, which confuses the AF system VERY badly if it hits the minimum focus stop. Fix is easy, set to MF, focus away from MFD, set back to AF. 

One thing I've been trying to do for a fairly long time is stop my gear churn, especially system switching. I have spent WAY too much time chasing the dragon, and got fairly little out of it. The two inflection points I see as true mistakes were in selling my X-T2 and in selling my OG Z5. m43 and Sony just don't work for me as systems, despite hitting on paper, while Canon can do what I need, but lacks the fun 3rd party lenses I so love to use for non-serious work.

I'm starting to see some success with that finally, the Z7 is the first body in a long time to see significantly more than 1 year of ownership as anything other than a shelf queen, although it is my least used body right now. In terms of how long I've had the bodies, the Z7 is at 18 months, the Z5ii is at 9 months and the Zfc just broke 2 months. The only one I'm ambivalent on right now is the Z5ii, and that's more about the DX/FX focus than anything else, as it's the only body I own that isn't a competent DX body (at 10.5MP in DX mode, it's just not there on resolution, while the Z7's 19.5MP in DX almost matches the Zfc's 20.1MP). 

On the lens front, I'm pretty good about not churning if there's no system switch triggering it. I do tend to start to build up a collection if I'm not system switching though. That's how I ended up with a pretty comprehensive set of manual focus lenses, covering 21-300mm, in F mount, plus small sets of M42, Contax/Yashica< Leica LTM & M Mount and FD mount lenses. 

In terms of systems today, I do love Fuji's wide selection of APS-C lenses and classic UI bodies, but I prefer Nikon's firmware and NEF files for post. And Flexible Color Picture Controls are much more powerful that Fuji's neat but pretty wildly oversold Film Simulations (especially since there's an actual post-production workflow that can use FCPC's, unlike Film Sims). I'd be happy with either choice if I could stop overthinking, which makes me lean hard on keeping the one I'm already invested in. I might just buy a Fuji X-Z AF adapter though, which would open up the Fuji lens lineup to my Zfc and Z7 (and maybe a future DX body....). If only Nikon had a DX X-T5 fighter...(either a direct DX version of the Zf, or just a 45MP Zfx, either would work for me in this role. Heck a Z5iix would as well)

 

Pondering APS-C Yet Again

Nikon Z5II, 24-85VR

This image didn't need FX. I could have gotten the same results with my 17-50 on my Zfc. 

One issue I continue to have with gear choice is that crop sensors really do deliver enough image quality for my needs. But I always want Full Frame, largely driven by wanting my collection of manual focus lenses to work as intended, which I then mostly don't use as they don't handle particularly well on mirrorless, losing the compact size I loved about them on classic manual film bodies. 

Working with the Zfc of late has reminded me that it does largely cover my needs and where I want the Z5ii in particular over the Zfc is never about that bigger sensor, but for the bigger EVF, IBIS, better ergonomics or the faster AF. These are all things that a notional Z70 or Z90 would cover, if such a thing existed. And when paired with modern manual APS-C lenses, it retains the compact size and handling I so loved about classic manual film cameras like the FM2n (the Zf is too large & heavy, more a F2 or F3HP equivalent than FM2n). 

With the recent(ish) Z 16-50/2.8 release, there's really only one real APS-C lens gap remaining for me, the higher-end UWA zoom, and I totally could get away with a prime or two in the 10-14mm range instead. But the Z50ii just isn't quite enough body for me to be willing to swap my Z5ii for it, even if it's probably enough body for me for most uses. The biggest loss overall for that swap would be IBIS on my 300/4D, which is a big part of why that lens works so well for me. 

This does leave me in a quandary, largely because I like to optimize my body selection to a ridiculous amount. For the most part the Z7 + Zfc combo covers my low/high needs. So do I really need the Z5ii in the first place? But the Z5ii is hands down the best of my bodies to use and the only one with the new Flexible Color Picture Controls and multi-shot. But selling the Z5ii would get me budget to go all-in on some good APS-C glass (say a 13mm f1.4 and a 16-50/2.8) which I could use on both remaining bodies, and keep the 45MP FX option when I really need the extra IQ (which is in part why I keep the Z7 in the first place). Or the Z5ii could go to fund a higher-end APS-C body, but I struggle to put the Z50ii in that category even though I know it has most of the extras I like about the Z5ii (lacking the EVF, larger body & battery & IBIS). I still reach for the Z5ii as my sole body for more serious work. 

The good news is I'm really not wavering on system choice. I just don't see any options that fit my use cases there other than Fuji, and Fuji just doesn't split quite the way I'd want it to for my needs and is right now late in the lifecycle of all their high-end bodies so I would not want to pay current pricing for a body whose cost & value will drop very soon as the next gen comes out. If I'd got the X-T30 route instead of the Zfc, I might have picked differently though, selling my Z5ii for a X-H2 or X-T5 would work in that situation, but not in the one I'm actually in. And quite frankly I prefer Nikon files to Fuji files, even if I love that Fuji lens lineup. 

So that leaves me at 'keep Z5ii, get a telezoom and maybe a wider FX UWA later this year', 'sell Z5ii and buy even more glass', or 'sell Z5ii, buy EXPEED7 Z DX body' in some form (Z50ii now or notional higher-end Z DX body later). Option 3 really also includes 'buy more AF glass' long-term as well. 

Right now in terms of native Z lenses, I have 4 total. The 28/2.8 SE and 40/2 SE (both FX AF primes) and the TTartisan 25/2 and 7Artisans 55/1.4 (both DX manual primes). For other AF lenses I really only have the F mount Tamron 17-50/2.8 DX, Nikkor 24-85VR and Nikkor 300/4D. I don't see getting rid of any of these even if I do change up bodies, since the only thing on the list which becomes less useful on DX would be the 24-85VR and I'd keep that for the Z7 which I have no intent to get rid of, since it works well as both a DX and FX body and has minimal resale value (due to age and being well over 300k shutter actuations). 

I do plan to increase my fleet of Z DX manual lenses, regardless of what direction I go. They're cheap, fun and surprisingly good and the Zfc was pretty much intended to be dedicated to these and I want to keep that. I'll also be investing in a new telezoom regardless, a 70-200/2.8 or similar. I need it regardless and it fits all paths relatively well. 

 

I've Broken Up with Adobe

Misty Morning

Z5ii, 24-85VR

Like many I've become increasingly annoyed with Adobe's cash grabs via their Lightroom subscriptions. Unlike many I don't actually have an issue with the subscription model, but rather with the incredibly low value per dollar that I found it delivered, especially regarding online storage. 

I've been using a cloud-based workflow shared across my iPad & MacBook Pro's using Lightroom, which was working well enough aside from the issues I had with the iPad version of LR not supporting key editing features. That had me looking for a similar solution in capability and with Apple's recent release of their Creative subscription, I signed up for that pretty much as soon as it released. 

I've since been slowly getting used to using Photos as my DAM solution and Pixelmator Pro as my editor. I do like the ability to use standard LUT's in my workflow now (LR only supports their own preset models) but miss the catalog of highly personalized presets I'd built up over more than a decade of use of LR. I'll have to do a lot of work in Pixelmator to rebuild them. 

I have migrated my entire catalog of photos to Photos as of a couple weeks ago. Not entirely loving Photos, but as a DAM tool, it's no worse than LR. More workflow will need to be worked out, but I can import on all my devices which is a win. 

 

A Second Goal Down, Plus Stretch Goals and Archive Clearing

A7IV, Tamron SP 17-28mm F2.8

The image above is the last image in the to-post queue for my recent Sony sojourn, it was posted today, a relatively quick end to a short and not very productive time with a solid camera that I never really jelled with for some reason. I still have plenty of Canon stuff in the archives to post, with even a few remaining R7 images. I'll clear those out and post them on Fred Miranda over the next few weeks. 

On other news, with uploading 3 images in every update (1 Sony, 1 Canon and 1 Nikon), I've seen a massive jump in likes on FM and am now over 67% on my likes to posts ratio and it continues to climb. I hope to break 68% and get a decent way to 69% before the Canon backlog clears out. For various reasons the Nikon forum on FM doesn't generate anywhere near the same number of likes per post as the Sony and Canon forums, this is likely because the Nikon forum is both less busy and has a bajillion separate image threads vs a single core image thread going at any given point. I find the more centralized the image threads, the more likes I get for a given post. 

I also took a small but dedicated photo outing last week after work, closing off the 7th such outing this year and completing a second goal for the year. That's 2 of 3 goals down and into the stretch realm. At this point I deem it unlikely that I'll shoot over 7000 more images this year (It's possible, but very unlikely) so I think the 10,000 images on one system goal is going to roll over to next year. I'm currently up around 2700 images for Nikon (1600 on the Z5ii, 1100 on the Z7) and 1350 for Sony (all on A7IV) with the streak broken for the latter as I sold it in September.

I'm counting that goal based on continuous ownership of the system, so from my acquisition of the Z7 since I'm still shooting that body actively alongside the Z5ii. 

At this point I'm really hoping I've broken my curse of chasing the dragon by coming back fully to Nikon. Looking back, I semi-regret selling the R6, I got a lot of good stuff with it and it was very well suited to my hiking needs, but it just didn't work for me for around-town shooting and adapting old and/or interesting lenses. The Z5ii is a better option for how I shoot than the R6 was, although I'd LOVE to see a Nikon equivalent to the tiny and excellent RF 100-400. I really miss that lens. I am enjoying the 300/4D as a telephoto option though. 

 

A Very Good Day of Photography

Nikon Z5ii, 300mm f4D on FTZII

Yesterday was a very good day of photography. I got out early enough to catch a sunrise (and pre-dawn mist) at Smoke Lake in Algonquin Park, one of my favourite places to shoot sunrises, and spent the day meandering through the park and then the Algonquin Highlands southeast of it, finishing up at Silent Lake Provincial Park before heading home through some backroads just before sunset. That's the sixth of my seven photo outings from my goals. Just one more this year and I'm done.

In other news, I broke 66% on my Like to Posts ratio on Fred Miranda, netting the first goal of the year done. At this rate if I keep up my posting there I should break 67% and possibly even 68% by year's end. The downside is the Nikon forum is the least active in Liking photography posts so once I exhaust the archives of old Sony and Canon shots, the rate of increase will drop. 

On the camera side, the Z5II is now at 1400 shots, exceeding in 1 month what I shot with the A7IV in 6 months. The Z7, which I also shot with a bit yesterday (mostly for the sunrise shots) is now up around 1100 shots and closing in on the 1350 or so shots I took with the A7IV. I expect shooting to taper off after October as we get into the dull portion of late fall which is always a photographic doldrum for me. I'll be happy if I finish the year with 1500 or so shots on the Z7 and 2500 on the Z5ii, bringing me over 5000 shots for the year and 4000 or so towards my 10,000 with one system goal (which I will not come close to making in 2025 barring a miracle). 

I also got a new lens this week, lucking into a nearly-mint AF-S 300mm f4 D ED for a crazy low price. It's got the AF-S squeak which is why it was so cheap, but otherwise looks essentially unused, likely having sat in a closet for years after purchase which is also one of the causes of AF-S Squeak. Even if the motor fails, I still got an otherwise mint 300 for less than a similar-condition copy of the AI-S version goes for. Had lots of fun shooting it yesterday, it's very sharp, has great close focus performance and stupid fast AF which matches up well to how I like to shoot when hiking. Lots of critter pics and also nature close-ups from yesterday. 

 

Z5ii - Initial Thoughts

 

Nikon Z5ii, AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 VR G on FTZII

3 shot/1 stop bracket to HDR

I've got about 400 shots on the Z5ii now, from a couple outings (one minor photowalk, one major outing over the weekend). Definitely still in new toy mode, but it also feels extremely comfortable, I can't remember the last camera I picked up that shooting with felt like coming home. That's probably the very familiar ergonomics (almost identical to my Z7 and even closer to the Z5 I had a few years ago). Oddly the only two recent Nikons I've bought new were the OG Z5 and the Z5II, I generally buy used cameras (the other exception in the last 5 or so years was the OM-1). 

It's no secret I liked the Z5ii on announcement, I called it 'surely the best in class' although at the time I still thought that picking the A7IV better fit my needs (and on paper, I was correct, in practice, well not so much). This is simply a very well sorted camera that brings an absolutely stupid amount of capability for its price and overshadows the competing cameras as a general use camera (S5II is still better for serious video, but lags at everything else largely due to the AF system still struggling, while the R8 offers small size, fast AF and high FPS rates, but lacks pretty much everywhere else as it has a consumer battery, no IBIS and an APS-C grade EVF) and about 95% of my complaints from the Z5 and Z7 have been addressed, and of the two major remaining ones only one could be sorted in software.

So what was fixed? Customizability mostly. All the buttons that I might want to program but couldn't on the Z5 and Z7, I can on the Z5II. Only a few core UI buttons (shutter release, menu, the zoom buttons and delete) are not programmable now. This immediately frees up 3 additional buttons for me if I'm willing to accept differing controls between my two bodies. My limiter on customization now is maintaining UI commonality between the less customizable Z7 and the more customizable Z5ii. Since the Z7 still brings one major item to the table (the amazing 45MP sensor), I want to keep them similar so I don't have to think when swapping between them. That does limit what I can do with Z5ii for now. 

The Non-CPU Lens system got an upgrade, fixing all my complaints. When I test drove the Zf in early 2025 it still offered the old Non-CPU Lens Data UI, where you picked focal length and aperture from a list f pre-populated values, which locked out non-Nikon focal lengths (like 21mm and 25mm) and apertures. It also didn't let you enter the lens name for EXIF like the OM and Panasonic bodies do. Those features were already in the Z8 and Z9 at the time, but had not tricked down to the lower-end EXPEED7 bodies (Zf and Z6iii in particular at that time, even though the Zf had the new MF assist functions it pioneered). With the Z5ii that changed and the new UI is present which addresses pretty much all the shortcomings of the system from the older EXPEED6 bodies like my Z7. It now writes full EXIF with dumb adapters and I can enter specific lens names to differentiate multiple lenses of the same spec (like my two 28mm f3.5's), I do still have to remember which slot is which if using the quick-access selection as that only shows slot ID, focal length and aperture, but it shows up in the full menu UI. My understanding is that the Zf and Z6iii on current firmware also have this now. It's a real value add for somebody who loves mucking about with non-CPU lenses as I do. 

There's also a lot of other Quality of Life updates in the EXPEED7 bodies, they're faster, less gotchas and just very well sorted. Plus it's nice to be using a system without the dust management issues that continue to plague Sony. 

What don't I like?

1. Bracketing Burst is still broken compared to the Nikon DSLR's (and Sony). I cannot set the Z bodies up to just shoot a burst if I have Bracketing enabled. Sony makes it a drive mode which allows this (but locks out combining bracketing burst with a self timer), The Nikon DSLR's had a custom function to set this to always on. I have to assign a button and hold that button down while shooting to get it on the Z's. 

2. That third control point on the body. The Sony bodies actually have 4 control points (which is more than I need, I never used the one around the d-pad), but being able to have exposure compensation on a dedicated dial in M+Auto ISO mode was great and I cannot do that on the Z's unless I put it on the lens ring and shoot only with lenses that have a ring (or a focus ring that can be re-assigned as a control ring). Worse, I can't set the camera up so that Aperture is on the lens and Shutter/ISO or Shutter/exposure compensation is on the body. That's by far the most normal setup I can think of for shooting with the control ring on the lens, especially since I use a lot of manual lenses where I'm basically just wasting a control point.

Overall, I'm really liking the Z5ii. It just feels like home so far. We'll see how things play out, but hopefully it will still be in my bag next September. 

The Nikon System Now

Nikon Z7, Nikkor 105mm f2.5 AI-S

So with my Sony stuff gone, there's a few gaps in my setup to fill, but I still do have a nice selection of glass available to me, especially reasonably compact primes.

So what's in the rotation?

Standard kit:

Zeiss Distagon 2,8/21 ZF - my standard wide-angle lens and an absolute gem.

Z Nikkor 40mm f2 SE - My AF fast/compact prime for walkaround. Rather good, decently small and fast enough

AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 VR G - Very solid and sharp general purpose zoom

Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 N-AF - My macro of choice even though it doesn't AF on the FTZ. 

M mount kit:

7Artisans 35mm f5.6 - Fixed aperture bodycap/small walkabout lens

Nikkor-S.C 5cm f1.4 LTM - Not only my cold dead hands lens, but a solid classic-rendering Sonnar type normal. Some issues with the M mount adapter mean I need to use a different adapter than I do for the other M lenses.

7Artisans 75mm f1.25 - Big, fast monster. Unique rendering and weak wide open, but lots of fun. 

F mount kit:

24mm f2.8 K - Classic Nikkor wide angle.

28mm f3.5 H - Classic low-contrast rendering, muted but beautiful colour, Kinda a PITA to focus due to low contrast, metal focus ring

28mm f3.5 AI - Classic and solid AI mild wide. Got it with the Z5ii in a 1 for 1 swap for my unloved 35/2 AI (a lens I've owned and not loved several times over the years, my least favourite Nikkor 35mm)

50mm f1.8D - Yeah, I have one, it's technically my partner's for her D50. Neither of us ever use it, but we won't sell it at this point

Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5 AI - Heirloom, came with my FE from my Aunt (who bought it new from the camera store I worked at as a teen). Will never sell this lens, and I love it, my 3rd one and I always get great results.

Nikkor 105mm f2.5 AI-S - The legendary Afghan Girl lens. Had a few copies previously, sold most foolishly (and broke one). Will not sell this one. 

Nikkor 200/4 Ai - This one needs a teardown, aperture is sticky. Nice lens otherwise and compact.

Nikkor 300/4.5 K AI'd - This thing sucks. But it's also worthless. Won't use or sell.

M42 kit

Super-Takumar 35/3.5 - Longstanding favourite. Keeping

Super-Takumar 135/3.5 - Tiny and decent. Fun and keeping.

I intend to add to all 3 kits. I miss my old (and formerly very complete) M42 kit, there's a few gaps in the F mount kit and I'm really enjoying cheap M glass.

Current priorities are:

1. AF telezoom

2. fast M wides - 28 and faster 35 for sure, then a modern 50 and last a 90. 

3. More ZF/ZF.2 lenses, especially a 35, 50 and 85. I miss my old 85/1.4 ZF.2 in particular. 

More native Z glass and M42 stuff when I can find it for pricing in the budget. 

The goal here is to get to a practical hiking kit quickly (UWA + normal + telezoom, and I just need the telezoom added), then focus on 'fun' lenses including backfilling some old stuff I sold and regret, or always wanted. 
 

So what about the Sony Lenses

Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 FE

This is the lens I'm going to miss the most from the Sony setup. I really liked this one, a great size and solid performance for a very reasonable cost. I will likely buy the Nikon-branded version, but it's literally twice the cost of a used Tamron in FE mount. In the interim I have my 21 Distagon which covers 90% of my needs in this space. 

Sigma 100-400mm f5-6.3 DG DN OS Contemporary

This one was already on the chopping block. The OS is known to be wonky and randomly just doesn't, which I ran into. A big part of why I was willing to dump all my native Sony glass was my general low-level dissatisfaction with this lens. Optically it's solid but not exceptional, the handling is OK but getting the optional lens foot was basically impossible (shared part with the discontinued 105/1.4) and the OS just didn't right when you needed it to. It was either being replaced with the Sony GM or a different super-tele zoom anyways. Not sure which way I'll go here, maybe an 80-400G or 70-200+TC, or possibly I'll get a smaller zoom + 180-600. 

The final lens in my kit was the Viltrox 40/2.5. This was a great little lens, small & sharp, but I actually never used it outside of some test shots. Since I have the faster Nikkor 40/2 in Z mount, I tended to just use the Z7 when I wanted a lens like that. I carried teh Viltrox around as a gap filler between the 17-28 and 100-400, usually alongside my EF mount Voigtlander 90/3.5 APO-Lanthar on an EF->FE adapter, but the 90 got used for its great close focus and the neat little Viltrox generally sat in the bag and was sad. 
 

Since only one of the three native lenses I had was really used and liked, one needed replacing and I already had a great alternative to the third in Z mount, using those lenses as part of my trade in to get the Z5ii (which I got brand new) made a bunch of sense. 

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.