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. 

 

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. 

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). 

Revisiting Old Takes on Nikon Z

 

Nikon Z7, Nikkor Z 40mm f2.0

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

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

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

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

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

Z7 First Impressions

 

Nikon Z7, Z 40mm f2.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oops, I Did It Again

Nikon Z7, Z 40mm f2 SE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

It's Announcement Week

 

E-M5.2, 12-40 Pro

Sony kicked things off last week with the A7IV, a significant update of their aging A7III. It gets the new body design from the A7SIII, the new processor platform, CFE-A support on slot 1, lossless RAW compression, all the new AF algorithms from the A1 and a new and promising 33MP sensor, but also gets a 25% price increase (to $2500USD/$3200CAD) and it's now limited to 6fps or lower in Uncompressed or Lossless Compressed RAW (the A7III did 10fps in Uncompressed, but didn't offer Lossless). Oh, and a flip/twist LCD. The sensor readout speed stays the same, so AF is not on the level of the A9 or A1 series, but it has a real touch UI, not the spec-sheet only touch of the A7III, and the UI responsiveness is increased to be actually comparable to a Nikon or Canon body.

I'm ambivalent on this. On paper it's perfect for my uses as it's very much the sort of balanced camera that I like, not too much MP, but enough to be a boost over 24MP, enough speed and the flip/twist LCD. The problem is I can now get a good high-MP camera for the same or less money and with current card prices, extra MP isn't really a downside. At the previous model's intro pricing this would have been a winner, but I just struggle to justify the price jump for a body that actually has more tradeoffs compared to the higher-end bodies than its predecessor did, even if the A7IV is a big upgrade over the aging A7III.

OMDS and Panasonic had big events advertised for today, both of which underwhelmed. OMDS announced they're dropping the Olympus branding in favour of OM System, a new slogan and a lot of clear focus on adventure photography. It's very clear where they're going and it's the right focus. But no lens announcements and only vague words about the upcoming 'wow' body that they've been hinting at in interviews.

Panasonic did even less. They had the 20th anniversary of the Lumix brand, a few weasel words about the GH6, but no announcement and a bunch more that basically come out as 'L is our future, we'll support m43 for video as long as it sells, forget m43 stills from Panasonic'. Not really surprising that pretty much every stills-focused Lumix Ambassador seems to have dropped either their Ambassadorship or their use of the Lumix system as a whole. 

There were also some lens announcements. Tokina announced that they will now sell rebadged Viltrox lenses in E mount too, and their pricing is saner (only slightly more than Viltrox this time) and Samyang dropped their AF 12/2 in Fuji X mount. 

Nikon's big day is tomorrow. Expected is the Z9, a new FTZII adapter addressing at least some of the complaints about the current one, plus 2 lenses and a development announcement for a third. The lenses expected are an f4 standard zoom (probably the 24-105 S on the roadmap), the 100-400 S and the announcement is expected to be the 400/2.8 S. This is a critical announcement for Nikon, their previous Z releases have all been very competent cameras, but have been overshadowed by their competition, even if they actually compare much better in the field than they do on paper. The Z9 is Nikon's first real attempt at making a body that truly is a world-beater and it needs to deliver. Nikon also needs to continue to build out the lens line, particularly at the long end where they remain weakest. 

As for me, how does this affect things? I honestly don't know right now. I frankly like the Nikon body options better than what I can get for the same budget from Sony, but I like the Sony lens options better in general (the 24-70/4 being the big exception right now). I can't help but think that the Techart TZE-01 might be the real solution here, letting me use E mount lenses (Samyang excepted) on Z. Get one, a Z body and just use a mix of E and Z lenses until Z catches up.

More GAS Struggles

 

Nikon Z5, 50mm f1.8G

It’s times like this that I kind of wish I’d kept the Z5 even when I went all-in on m43. That would have given me an easy-out for my current GAS struggles, just get something for the Z5 and shoot it for a while. 

I’m currently fighting off an attempt by my brain to argue that I should get rid of the Oly kit and go all-in on Sony. The reason being that I can get so much interesting stuff for Sony cameras. This of course ignores the reality that I already have the basics of a solid m43 kit and I’d be starting almost from scratch with Sony (I can borrow lenses from my partner, who has a basic Sony A7II kit)

What would Sony bring me?

1. Commonality with my Partner’s kit. She can borrow my glass, in a pinch I can borrow hers.

2. Better suited for adapting my solid selection of film lenses. I still have 24mm, 28mm, 2x35mm, 2x50mm, 55mm Macro, 105mm, 2x135mm, 200mm and 300mm options. 

3. WIDE selection of available lenses. E/FE mount is the best supported mount today, especially for inexpensive primes, both manual and AF.

4. High-MP single-shot options. 36MP+

5. Fast AF if I get newer bodies (mkIII+)

What would it cost me?

1. Flip/Twist LCD. None of the bodies I’d be looking at would have anything other than a tilt LCD.

2. Multi-shot capabilities. If I get a MKIII body, I lose any in-body multishot capability. If I got an A7R, A7RII or A7II I’d at least have the Smooth Reflections app, which is actually better than Oly’s E-M1.3-only equivalent (LiveND). But going with the older body costs me the AF and handling improvements.

3. Lens selection. I currently have 5 m43 lenses covering 24mm-e to 300mm-e, and only one is at all weak (my little 40-150 f4-5.6R). While I still have gaps, it’s a pretty solid lens selection overall. I’d be starting from almost-scratch with AF lenses in any other mount. 

One challenge is I know I just don’t love using primes when hiking. I get by, but I do prefer using compact, high-quality zooms like the m.Zuiko 12-40 f2.8 Pro. That lens is simply the hardest lens to replace in my kit and the biggest draw for remaining in m43. It’s quite literally why I sold the Z5 (which in hindsight might have been as big a mistake as selling the E-M1.2 was)

With regards to my other lenses, I’ve never quite gelled with the 75/1.8, it’s an amazing bit of glass but it doesn’t focus close enough and the focal length always seems either too long or too short. I continue to use it solely because it’s f1.8 and on m43 that matters a lot when I’m in darker areas of the forest, so it replaces the more flexible 40-150R due to that extra 2-3 stops of speed needed to make up for the noise limits of  the m43 kit.

The 17/1.8 is pretty much just a webcam lens for me. I do use it when walking around in the city, but that’s generally it. The 45/1.8 is something I just don’t use much, the length makes it a people/street lens for me and I barely every do that these days. At its current cost, it’s a keeper for sure, but it’s not something I’m really needing either. I bought it as much because I found the 105mm too long too often on the Z5 as anything else. 

The gripping hand here is that Z6’s and Z7’s are comparatively cheap on the used market right now. As bodies, they will work well for me based on my experience with the Z5. The challenge there is glass, it’s very good, but doesn’t really feed my cheap/fun glass addiction the way Sony can. 

What do I really want? A Z7 with FE lens selection, flip-twist screen and Oly software…

Nikon Z fc - Neo Retro from Nikon

 

Fujifilm X-T2, XC 35mm f2

Nikon just announced the Z50II Z fc

What is it? Most of the expected Z50II updates in a classic UI body.

At first glance, Nikon seems to mostly have listened to the complaints about the Df's absolutely atrocious integration of the classic and modern UI. This body clearly prioritizes the classic UI for most things.

It also fixes a couple complaints I had with the Z50, namely the poor choice of a USB Micro-B connector (now USB-C with PD like all the other Z's except the Z50) and the tilting LCD is replaced by a proper flip/twist LCD. It also gets a completely new feature, you can now update firmware via Snapbridge, which is nice. Now give us settings and Picture Controls that way Nikon...

Still uses the EN-EL25 battery, which is unique to the Z DX bodies, no wired remote support at all (less of an issue in a world with Snapbridge, in-camera interval shooting and tap shutter, but still annoying) and the SD card slot is with the battery.

Some AF updates come as well, derived from the Z6II/Z7II, but otherwise this is a Z50II in FA clothing. And yes, I say FA clothing very intentionally. In UI terms this is an FA, it uses the same sort of mode control the FA did (where the mode switch controls which dials are active). I kind of dig that, it's enough different from Fuji's style of UI (which is very Pentax/Contax in terms of how modes are selected) to not be a copy, while hewing close to a classic Nikon, even if a slightly obscure one.

There's a bolt-on grip, but I'm going to strongly suggest avoiding it and waiting for the Smallrig option instead. The grip is clearly undersized and is not Arca-swiss compatible.

Kits are the 16-50 and a new FX 28/2.8 SE, which is the upcoming Z 28/2.8 with some very Series E cosmetics tacked on top. Same price add, and we now have pricing on the 28/2.8 ($300USD, right where I was expecting it to be). Sadly Nikon has not released a date when the 28 will be available separately (just 'in the fall')

We also got a development announcement for the Z 18-140 DX, which is about the least needed lens right now on the roadmap. 

To be honest, this is a really nice little camera that was an utter waste of resources for Nikon. They need a high-end DX camera FAR more than this, they need to get needed lenses out the door far more than this camera (or the 18-140 DX) and they just trolled all the Z5 owners with the 28SE, as getting that will require flipping a Z fc for the next few months (which I expect is actually going to happen, I suspect Nikon will be quite happy with sales on the Z fc + 28 kit while the market is going to end up with a bunch of Z fc's being sold body-only as a result)

So Nikon - Bravo on the design, but the product planning needs some real work. Ain't nobody in Z right now that wants this release more than what you've already announced development of (namely the two compact primes and the Z9). 

Oh, and Canon just dropped their 15-35/4. They now have a full f4 trio for the hiker, plus a working 3 lens 15-500mm combo, all native. Where's yours Nikon? 

I Did It Again

Olympus E-M5 Mark II, m.Zuiko 17mm f1.8

After a lot of serious thought and plenty of hemming and hawing, I've broken through my analysis paralysis and made a decision.

The Z5 is gone, Olympus it is for the foreseeable future. Knowing me, it's not going to be permanent, but I'd love to finally stick to a system.

There's two basic reasons for the decision.

1. Flip/Twist LCD. I like low-angle shooting. I like shooting portrait orientation on a tripod. The LCD setup on the E-M5II is just WAY better for both of these than the Z5 because the Z's all lack more than one axis of LCD articulation.

2. The 12-40 Pro. This lens is just so bloody good. And the Z 24-50 was always kind of frustrating because it was good, but got in my way at the same time. The key difference isn't aperture, but close focus. The 12-40 Pro is extremely good at close focus, with 0.2m MFD and the crop factor effectively doubling the magnification in 'fill the frame' terms. The Z 24-50 is not terrible with a 0.34m MFD, but it could not even come close to the 12-40 Pro in close focus.

The end result is that more and more I would just grab the E-M5II when leaving the house. I'd barely shot a frame on the Z5 in two weeks and as of right now I've shot 2100 frames in 6 weeks with the E-M5II and 3300 in 14 weeks with the Z5. That really shows just how much more I'm using the E-M5II than I was the Z5.

 Don't get me wrong, I still think the Z5's a great camera, and it's definitely a better low-light & long lens camera than the E-M5II. But I'm more a wide angle guy and the Z5's advantages (better AF, better sensor, better EVF) are less useful to me than the E-M5's advantages (better LCD articulation, better normal zoom, better IBIS)

So I traded in the Z5/24-50 kit, FTZ, 50/1.8G and 70-300E and came home with a 40-150 f4-5.6 R, 17/1.8, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8. That gives me a basic tele zoom for good light that I know performs well (it's copy #3 at least for me, maybe #4), and a fast and compact AF 35mm equivalent (the 17/1.8), I've owned it before and while it's not amazing, it's quite compact. 

The other two lenses I've not owned before, but they give me a truly tiny 90mm equivalent and a nicely sized and extremely good performing 150mm equivalent, both with f1.8. Both have long been on the list of m43 lenses I've wanted to own. 

I will need a second body though, the AF-C of the E-M5II is just not usable. That will no doubt be an E-M1 Mark II or III. An UWA is also needed, as is the 40-150 f2.8 Pro. And I'll probably pick up a fast normal as well.

But for now I have two really usable 2-lens kits with the E-M5II. The 12-40 can pair with the 75 very well, and the 17 & 45 pair well. One for really light carry, one for serious work. And the 40-150 can be thrown in the bag whenever I want a little long-lens coverage. 

Plus the 17 can stay on the E-M5II when using it as a webcam, so when I have that second body I can have a kit ready to go while still having the webcam hooked up.

A Few Thoughts

Fujifilm X-T2, 7Artisans 12mm f2.8

Processed the last few X-T2 images in my backlog today. There's still some to be posted, but the Fuji stuff is pretty close to being done, wrapping up my latest adventure with that system. Still have 2 X-T1 images to post, but I processed the last X-T1 images weeks ago.

I still do feel affection for the system, it's a solid choice but not for me for landscape work. I just don't get along with the colour science. Not enough deep blue. REALLY nice B&W output though, Fuji is probably my favourite for B&W tones out of the box. I still do think it's odd I can't get Provia colour from the camera made by Provia's maker and which includes a 'Provia' setting (which looks nothing like Provia btw)

At this point I've taken almost 1400 images with the E-M5 Mark II that replaced the Fuji stuff, that's in about 5 weeks with some hiking involved. That's reasonable, especially since I'm basically shooting with one lens welded on, namely the 12-40 f2.8 Pro. 

I did use my Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 AI a bunch today, it's really nice on the E-M5 II, much more usable than on the Z5 where the working distance limits me more (in terms of filling the frame, the crop factor makes the 55 Micro at 1:2 actual magnification functionally the same as a 110 Macro at 1:1 on Full Frame)

The Z5 is coming up on 3400 shots, with 2 months more ownership. That's a solid increase since early May, but overall a lower rate than the E-M5 II so far. A lot of that is that the E-M5 II is just a better walkabout camera in most regards, with a much more flexible normal zoom, in terms of range, close focus ability and speed. 

The close focus ability is the real game changer here, it just makes the 12-40 so much more useable for around the neighbourhood shooting than the Z 24-50 is. Even the 24-70/4 S cannot match the close focus of the 12-40 Pro. 

The more flexible flip/twist LCD setup on the E-M5 II also contributes here. It makes low and odd angle shooting so much easier it's not funny, especially as I shoot a lot of portrait orientation work. If I did mostly landscape orientation the Z5's LCD would be way less limiting.

 I would love a Z5-level EVF on the Oly's. The difference in EVF quality and transparency is immense. With the Oly's you are clearly looking at an electronic display, the Z5 however just seems to show what's going on, like a regular OVF with more data. 

The Z5 also comes out ahead in terms of AF. More flexibility and more control than the E-M5 II. The one thing the E-M5 II does particularly well is handle when the scene is totally out of focus. The Z5 struggles, the E-M5 II pauses for a bit then starts racking through the focus range to try and find a subject.

A wildcard that's been thrown in on system selection for me is that Olympus/OMDS is no longer regular stock items at any major retailer. Henry's, Vistek and Downtown Camera all now treat it as Special Order. I need to figure out if I can live with that. That said, it's not like there's a lot of kit I'd be looking to add either way. 

For now, I'm going to keep tracking my usage to see if a clear winner emerges between the two cameras. If not, I'll have to make some sort of decision later this summer.

New Toys From Nikon

Nikon Z5, Z 24-50

Today Nikon finally launched some new gear. After a long drought since last fall's Z6II & Z7II, Nikon announced both of the Macro lenses on their Z roadmap, the Nikkor MC 105mm f2.8 S VR and the Nikkor MC 50mm f2.8, which will be shipping in the next few weeks.

The 105 is looking very good. Nikon launched it at a lower price than I expected ($999USD, $100 more than the somewhat unimpressive 105VR it replaces) and delivered a lens that they are promising to deliver both excellent macro performance and excellent performance if using as a portrait lens. Still no real VR/IBIS integration though. This lens is on my wishlist for sure, I love doing macro and close focus work and often find my current options too limiting. 62mm filter size, which is somewhat annoying (Can't Nikon settle on a standard set of filter sizes? Right now it's almost one of each size in the Z lineup)

The 50 also looks good. It's $50USD more than the 60mm f2.8G it replaces, which is reasonable. Interestingly it uses 46mm filters, same as the 16-50DX. not a cheap lens, but it would be a great gap lens between the 14-30/4 S and a 70-300 for a lightweight and mobile kit. Interesting, but not a must-buy for me. I do like that it's 50mm rather than 60mm, as that gaps better (although I'd rather have 55mm or 60mm on DX).

We also got pictures and a couple specs on the 28 & 40mm Muffin lenses. Yes, they aren't pancakes. The 28 is f2.8 and the 40 is f2, the filter size is 52mm (yes!) and the mount is plastic. No pricing, optical specs or ETA beyond 'before end of 2021'. The plastic mount suggests some nice aggressive pricing on these two lenses and they're both pretty much must-haves for me. Love to see a 85/2.8 or 100/2.8 to round out a nice trio of inexpensive primes for the Z5. I don't care about plastic mounts as long as the pricepoint isn't too high. Rather trash a $200 lens than a $1k+ camera.

The 40/2 in particular goes a LONG way to addressing my biggest issue with the Z5, which is 'cheap body, expensive glass'. A Nifty 40 is perfect for this, without being too close to either the 35/1.8 S or 50/1.8 S.

Actually, that reminds me that a 55/2 Muffin would be a nice choice to round out this line as well, as it would be a great portrait lens on the Z50 while being a nice long normal that a 40/2 user might consider as well. But Nikon needs to get the 28 & 40 into stores first. They've promised a LOT for FY 2021 (30 lenses released in Z mount, do note that due to Nikon's fiscal year, their promise is for the period of April 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022, not by end of calendar year 2021)

 

Analysis Paralysis

 

Nikon Z5, Z 24-50

Did another hike yesterday. It's a great activity for exercise while maintaining social distancing, you don't want other people around if you can avoid it. 11.3KM & 18,000+ steps on a moderate-rated '8km' hike. Yes, I keep getting bit by trail distance ratings being well off from reality. 

Did make a few errors, mostly prior to leaving. First off, I forgot to charge my Z5 and had 52% battery when I got to the trailhead. Big takeaway there is that I need a USB-C PD capable adapter in the car, either a small power USB power panel or a 12V car adapter widget, my current unit just isn't delivering the power necessary to charge my Z5 (or my iPhone and iPad Pro for that matter). I also forgot one charged battery for the E-M5II, and of my 2 spares there, one wasn't charged either. Luckily I caught this early enough that I could use one of my USB charging docks to half-charge the spare BLN-1 on the drive (these docks don't pull a lot of power from the USB port, so they work with my current car adapter, but they're also very slow to charge, ~4 hours to full). Finally I forgot my PD Leash wrist strap, which I really like having for security when working in places where a dropped camera would be a catastrophic loss.

I spent the first half of the hike shooting both bodies, with the 70-300E on the Z5 and the 12-40PRO on the E-M5II. That mostly worked well, although to be honest I was really missing the Z5's better AF system control for some of the work I shot with the E-M5II. I did a bit of long-exposure work on the E-M5II here, and it mostly worked pretty well. The only real issue I had was one really nice shot that could have worked better if I'd bracketed it and merged the two images in post and I didn't think to do so. I took a break about halfway in at a nice shoreline rest spot and did some long-exposure work with both the E-M5II and the Z5. I did not have a re-occurrence of the issues with getting a usable display with ND filters on the Z5, I think now that it was a combination of the polarizer (I did notice both bodies displays darkened more with the polarizer than with a 10-stop ND fitted, but exposures were generally good) and the sun position (shining directly into the EVF sensor)

After the rest stop, I stuck the E-M5II in the pack and shot the rest of the hike only with the Z5 as a test. I used all 3 lenses, the Laowa 15/4 Macro, the Z 24-50 and the 70-300E. This worked generally well, but swapping lenses between the Z 24-50 and 70-300E is a pain when trying to work quickly (the 15 really doesn't suit quick work in the first place, so it's not so much of an annoyance). I really did appreciate the generally quicker control of the body, especially of the AF system. For all that there's some really valid complaints about the limited AF controls on the Z's vs the F mount bodies, they do generally do better than most comparable mirrorless bodies once you get used to the setup.

Moving between the two dissimilar interfaces in the E-M5II and Z5 is an exercise in aggravation, as the UI's are different enough and the capabilities also different enough that I have to context switch too much. The E-M5II has a lot of nice extra features, but I do have to work to access them, most are menu dives, the Z5 is a much faster body to work with and while the Super Control Menu is a lot more capable than the 'i' menu, the 'i' menu is more configurable and quicker to access. 

This shows me that I really would be better off with 2 bodies in the same mount when working in the field, not 2 dissimilar bodies. Nikon is probably the easier to do this with as all the FX Z bodies are essentially identical in UI aside from the mode dial location and presence of a top LCD. Olympus would require two E-M1.2/3 bodies to get full benefit of a similar UI between both bodies, the E-M5's have the same basic menu structure as the E-M1's, but the body control layout is quite different with the E-M1's actually being closer to the Z's in control layout.

If I was to go to a 2 similar body setup on the Z's, I basically need the 24-70S (on my list already as long as I keep the Z5) and a new body to get all the basics covered. That could be a Z6 or Z5, or I could save up a bit more and get a used Z7 and get that glorious 45MP sensor and some extra crop capability. The Z50 is a non-option here as it can't share batteries with the Z5 and the UI is just enough different to make it a less than ideal change from the Z5. 

On the Olympus side I'd need an UWA, a 40-150 Pro and eventually 2 bodies (as the E-M5II doesn't match up well to the E-M1's for UI, so the E-M5II+E-M1 combo runs into a lot of the same issues as the E-M5II+Z5 combo). That's more glass, but on the body side I can add one, get the glass, then add another body later. But here I need the glass too, and relatively quickly. Costs are the same short term (a 40-150 Pro + E-M1.2 costs the same as a used Z7, but I could get another Z5 for about the same cost as an E-M1.2) and a 9-18 or Laowa 7.5 cost on par with a 24-70/4 S.

The more I look at this, the more the Z system seems to draw ahead. As much as the computational photography extras help m43, the ones I have today really only serve to match what I can get single-shot with a Z, and the extras on the E-M1's are things that would be nice, but I don't need all that much (like ProCapture and Handheld high-res). LiveBulb is the real kicker here, but I've not used it that much at all. The long shutter limit of the earlier Z bodies (before the Z6II/Z7II) is a real annoyance, I can just use bulb, but then I need to math and hand-time. But I can do that if needed.

Frustrations and Filters

 

OM-D E-M5 Mark II, m.Zuiko PRO 12-40mm f2.8

Got out yesterday for another hike, same setup as last time, mostly shooting with the Z5/70-300E and E-M5II/12-40PRO combos. I spent a little time with the Z24-50 on the Z5, but I got frustrated with it quite quickly. I was shooting in bright sunlight and wanted to use my 10 stop ND+ Polarizer, but I could not get the Z5 to give me a workable display. Ended up using the 5 stop instead, which was just barely enough. I was a little surprised, as I've used the 10 stop successfully on the Z5/24-50 combo before, but I suspect I was running into a combination of LCD auto-brightness, limited max shutter speed and LV Settings simulation. 

I didn't yet have any ND filters that fit my 12-40 Pro, so I couldn't swap that in for long-exposure work, although somewhat ironically, I got home to find that Amazon had delivered a 62mm 10 stop ND a day early. Really could have used that on the hike.

I'm using Gobe/URTH ND filters, which are a decent budget option. They do have a colour cast (regardless of advertising, all but the most pricey ND filters have colour casts), but it's a relatively easily corrected warming effect. I do want to get a high-end ND/Polarizer setup, but those are expensive enough that I want to know exactly what set I need before investing, which requires my gear setup to settle down.

That means I really do need to settle on my landscape kit. If I continue down the m43 path there I get a much more mature system, a smaller one and a lot of very useful features available right now. Plus if nothing else the bodies are a lot cheaper, especially once the Z9 ships (which should cost double what an E-M1X costs, that's the closest comparable m43 body).

If I go down the Z path, I'll be waiting for stuff and have to carry more weight, but the basics are in place today, the glass is every bit as good and I can go up to 45 or more MP right now and get a lot of flexibility in terms of cropping that way.

The real challenge is every time I go out with the E-M5II, I'm reminded how good and small the E-M1II setup was, and every time I go out with the Z5 I'm reminded how good the performance is there. But when I carry both I get annoyed at the AF of the E-M5II (seriously inferior to the Z5) and how limited the Z5 is on the tripod (seriously inferior in LCD viewing angles and multi-shot capabilities to the E-M5II)

Motivation

 

Panasonic G1, Super-Takumar 35mm f3.5

The last couple weeks I've been struggling with motivation again. Not to get out and shoot, but to get out and shoot with my film cameras. After a very active March & April where I shot 20-ish rolls of film, I'm just reaching for the digital bodies every time I leave the house.

Some of this is just my usual addiction to shooting flowers in the spring. I don't like doing that on film, but love it on digital, especially with the E-M5II/12-40PRO combo which is a nearly perfect setup for flower photography. Some is that I've pretty much shot everything there is close to home at least 5 times and I only really enjoy constant revisiting when shooting flowers/insects.

The challenge here is that my Film Instagram gets a lot more interest than my digital one does. I generally see 25-30 likes on the first 24 hours of posting to the film IG, and 6-7 likes on the regular IG. This is despite having 50% more followers on the regular one.

So I sort of want to chase Likes, but on the other hand forcing myself to make photographs is a prescription for even more motivation loss. If I push myself too much to make film work, I'll just end up sticking everything in the bag and leaving it alone for a while, and that while might end up being years.

That said, I think I'll just grab the F2a and 35/2 AI today, along with a spare roll of HP5+. I need to run out and get some milk at lunch and that's always a good walk for film (east on Eglinton Ave West between Allen Rd and Bathurst St)

A Little Hike

 

Z5, 70-300 E

So I added the Nikkor 70-300 E to my kit on Friday, which gives me a full hiking kit for the Z5, made up of the Laowa 15mm f4 Macro, the Z 24-50 kit lens and the 70-300E. That's a pretty workable kit overall.

I went out yesterday with it, although I also carried the E-M5II with the m.Zuiko Pro 12-40mm f2.8.

This combo worked pretty well, I pretty much ended up shooting with the 70-300E on the Z5 on the capture clip, and pulling the E-M5II/12-40 out of the belt pouch when I needed the wider lens or closer focus (the 12-40 is a really good near-macro). This let me avoid lens changes in the field a fair bit.

I also had the Z24-50 and a selection of filters in the pouch, and used the 24-50 for the shots I wanted an ND for, as all of my ND's are 52mm right now (I need to invest in larger ND filters). I had a Cokin P mount setup with a polarizer for the 12-40 and 70-300E (it won't work with the 15/4 even though I have the UW mount, it vignettes). I didn't use the 15/4 even though I carried it. I did go in expecting that the 15/4 wouldn't get used, I've hiked the trail before in the fall and knew what I'd be seeing.

I learned a few things from this.

1. Even though neither of my cameras is setup correctly for tripod work, not having proper screen articulation on the Z5 was more frustrating than the lack of an L bracket was on the E-M5II. The L bracket issue is also more readily addressed. I definitely had some issues shooting portrait orientation with the Z5 on the tripod (or really for any low-angle shots). 

2. AF on the Z5 is a LOT better than the E-M5II. This is not an unexpected revelation, the E-M5II is no match for the E-M1II either in terms of AF and lacks both point selection options and performance compared to either.

3. I'm getting really good at manipulating the Z5's AF system. It really does control well considering the lack of direct controls available. Now if only Drive Mode saved to the User Banks.

4. Yes, returning the E-M1II and getting the Z5 was a mistake. I'd have been a fair bit better off if I'd had the E-M1II with a 40-150 Pro instead of the Z5. But the Z5 works very well nonetheless and the Z5/70-300E combo was more achievable right now that selling the Z5 and getting an E-M1II/40-150 Pro would have been. The math here might have been different at the retail price on the 70-300E, but it's on sale now at 25% off list which really adds up.

5. I don't regret owning the Z5, even if I regret buying it. It does work very well for me regardless of whether or not the alternative would have worked better.

So what am I going to do? For now, I'll be looking to get the 24-70/4 S for the Z5, as a 24-50 replacement with better range and better weather sealing & low temperature performance, then I suspect I'll concentrate on building out the m43 kit to where it needs to be to be a complete standalone system. 

The big kicker for me now is what do I do as an UWA for the m43 stuff. Do I go with the obvious and get a 7-14/2.8 (and pay through the nose for filters and a holder), do I wait for the upcoming 8-25/4, or do I get an alternate option like the Laowa 7.5/2 or the Leica 8-18/2.8-4. This will probably be the last hurdle I solve, and it may end up with multiple options (I could readily see having the 7-14 for rough conditions and 1-2 Laowa primes for compact carry)

Z Musings

 

Z5, 105/2.5 AI-S

This was one of the first shots I took with the Z5, from the first day of ownership at the end of February (to be exact, shot #36)

Today, in mid-May, I've taken just over 1900 images with the Z5.

That's really not where I expected to be with it, I was expecting about 50% more.

What happened?

1. I started shooting film again in a significant way. More than 20 rolls worth so far this year, the most I've shot in all but one year since 2012. That distracted me from all my digital work.

2. I'm somewhat less than really happy with the FTZ experience. It's not the camera's fault, it's mine. I've never really got along with adapted SLR primes on mirrorless as a primary shooting setup, but I keep trying it. Need to quit doing that, it never works out like I'd planned. Not that the results aren't good, but that the shooting experience is not what I really enjoy, more from a handling perspective than anything. The longer the lens, the better here, I'm much fonder of the 105/2.5 on the FTZ than I am of say the 35/2 (which is probably my least favourite lens on the Z5, at probably my favourite focal length for general shooting. Of course, I'm starting from a bad spot since I just don't like the 35/2 AI that much in general). 

3. I got aggravated quickly by the Z 24-50's focus issues in the cold. Took a while to figure out what was going on (and Nikon Canada Support was utterly worthless in helping me out). Suffice it to say I will have an alternate solution before fall comes. That really made the first few weeks with the Z5 less of a New Toy experience and more of an intermittent frustration experience, for something I can't blame the body for.

4. I rapidly started missing the m.Zuiko PRO 12-40mm f2.8, partly because of #3, partly because it's just an amazing bit of glass. Now I have the E-M5II for it and am enjoying that, although I do not see the E-M5II as a primary body anytime soon, it really replaces the X-T1 as my occasional/light use body. I will be rounding out that setup, but I'm not sure what that really means yet. The last post covers what a full m43 setup would be for me, but the Z5 complicates things.

Now I really like the Z5 body itself. The files are amazing, the handling great and it just works. Plus it has all the extra bits I like (USB-C power/charge, wireless inc/remote functionality). It is a bit of a chonker for mirrorless, by far the biggest & heaviest one I've used, but you gain a great grip and no finger clearance issues (unlike what I experienced with the Sony's)

I took the Z5 out for a walk today while I had some time to kill near Sunnybrook, and came home with a bunch of work. Very much enjoyed it and shot mostly with the 24-50, although I did use the 15/4 as well. While I had the 105 and 200 with me, I didn't use them at all (I did mount the 200 at one point, but couldn't focus fast enough for it to matter). I came home thinking a 70-300E would have been extremely useful and probably allow for a much simpler kit than carrying 4 lenses (I'd drop both telephoto primes for the 70-300E). 

The kicker for me is what is going to be a solid rough conditions kit. I've heard good things about the sealing on the Z's, but I have zero trust for the 24-50 in any sort of challenging conditions. So I'd be buying new glass for that.

What would a Z system look like for me?

Z5, 14-30/4, 50/1.8G, 70-300E would work, I could also sub the 24-70/4S in for the 50/1.8G, the 3 zoom kit would be more flexible for hiking, but both would work (the upcoming Z 50 micro could replace the 50/1.8G as well).

In terms of primes, I'm thinking the S lenses are mostly out for me, the 20 is interesting for its absolute performance and I'm really loving what I see from the 35, but the 28 and 40 Muffin lenses are probably where it's at for me, plus the Viltrox 85mm. Alternatively I might add the other Viltrox FF lenses if they come to Z mount (they have a 24/1.8 and are doing a 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 too, but so far they're FE mount only and the 85 is the only one in multiple mounts).

I don't see any high-end lenses short term, they're just too heavy and too expensive. 

Random Musings

Pentax 6x7, SMC Takumar 105/2.4, Agfa Scala 100

Been involved in an interesting discussion on FredMiranda based off a Professional Photographer's social media posting about why they continue to stick with DSLR's.

One of the commenters was going on about how Mirrorless isn't ready for prime time. A few of us started quizzing them about what they meant. Turned out it was a combination of buying Sony offerings obviously unsuited to their uses (A6x00's don't handle well with long lenses) and more importantly, refusing to read the manual. They had a number of issues with performance on the Olympus E-M1.2 that come down to they left the default settings then complained that the default settings didn't do what they wanted and rather than read the manual (the E-M1 series are insanely configurable and almost everything can be setup 5 different ways) they just used non-optimal workarounds and complained about it.

Rule #1. Learn your camera. Especially if switching systems (the guy in question was a long-time Nikon guy and seemed to expect identical behaviour from another brand's camera). If you don't learn your camera, don't expect to enjoy the experience. 

When I get a new camera I usually buy a guide (Thom Hogan's guides for Nikon, other writers handle other systems. There's excellent guides out there for Olympus and Fuji that I'm aware of, and I'm sure Canon, Sony, Panasonic and Leica all have 3rd party guides as well). I always spend a bunch of time figuring out what the bits I expect to use will do. I also have a pretty standard set of features I use (A & M modes, Auto ISO, FL settings for IBIS/Non-CPU lenses, bracketing and if the camera is capable of doing it in RAW mode, HDR/stacking) so going through and figuring out how the features I use regularly work is part of the new camera experience.

Rule #2. If you are doing something that challenges the camera, like Bird in Flight photography, go read some on doing that sort of work on that camera before complaining about the camera. There's plenty of guides online. Olympus for example has a great starter guide for BiF on their website which will give you good settings to start from. The defaults are almost never right for anything past general walkabout shooting.

 Moving on to other randomness, I'm a little frustrated with shooting the Z5 these days, and frankly am kind of regretting getting rid of the E-M1.2 to get it.

I still think the Z5 is a great camera, the body itself is not the source of my frustrations. It's the lens situation. 

There's three aspects to this.

1. I'm very hesitant about the Z 24-50. It screwed me in the cold. It handles poorly. The close focus isn't as good as I'd like. On the plus side it's excellent optically, the AF is speedy and the 52mm filter size is great when pairing with AI lenses, as it's the standard filter size for older Nikon glass.

2. The FTZ handling is meh at best. The chonky tripod mount blocks the body mount in many setups, so I need to have an L-bracket mounted to use a capture clip with the body + FTZ. The tripod mount also doesn't fit the hand well, and it's simply kinda porky and adds a lot of weight to the Z5+manual lens combos. I think I'm just going to have to accept at some point that adapting SLR lenses is just not working for me as a regular use setup. I love the idea, but I didn't like the reality on the A7II, I didn't like the reality on m43, I didn't like the reality on the Fuji's and I don't like the reality on the Z5 either, at least with the FTZ. I might try a 3rd party F mount adapter, but that will cost me EXIF.

3. Native Nikkor lenses. They're big, they're expensive and I just don't see myself buying into a system that pricey to deliver IQ that I just don't need. 

The challenge is that I REALLY like the body itself. My challenges are all around what to put in front of it. I'll admit I've been spoiled by the m.Zuiko PRO 12-40/2.8 for its small size, ridiculously good close focus performance (0.2m and SHARP) and optical quality. 

I see three options.

1. The simplification option. Trade Z5 kit in on an E-M1.2 as soon as Henry's gets one in used (or special order a new one at the current pricing, which gets me a new one for $200). I get hosed on my investment, but get a working kit relatively quickly.

2. The glass option. Trade Z5 in and use the credit for glass for m43 and/or film kit. That could get me a really awesome couple lenses for film (ZF.2 25/2.8 and 50/1.4) which pair well with my 105/2.5, or some nice options for m43. I'd re-buy the E-M1.2 at a later date. Still get hosed on my Z5 investment here but it could round out one of the kits very quickly.

3. Keep the Z5, move to using it with native 3rd party lenses/adapted M/LTM/FE lenses. I like the Z5 better than any Sony bodies, so I'd effectively remove my reliance on adapting SLR lenses for more compact adaptation options like M and FE mounts, and/or buying some of the 3rd party manual lenses from TTArtisan, 7Artisans and Laowa. I end up with a bunch of capital tied up in a body that's basically a side project, but on the flip side I keep a body I really do enjoy while investing in glass that better suits how I work with it and removes some of the handling warts. And I still have the FTZ to use with F mount lenses if and when it's needed. I'd put more into the m43 side as that would become my primary hiking kit. 

Frankly, what will likely happen is either #1 or #3. #1 if I continue to get more frustrated with the Z5 lens situation, #3 otherwise. #2 option 1 puts the investment in an area I'm unwilling to bet on, I'm still not sure if film is going to remain a major part of my work, it's really enjoying a boost right now because of the level of instagram engagement I'm getting and generally liking film for around town/found item work. I'm not sure I've any interest in expanding it beyond that though, and I kind of expect the rate of shooting to taper off some as things open up and I can get out in the woods again.