Fujifilm X-T3 First Impressions

 

Fujifilm X-T3, Sigma CONTEMPORARY 30mm f1.4 DC DN

Sigma really needs to shorten their lens names ;-) The name is longer than the lens, which is rather compact for an f1.4 lens even in APS-C. 

Yes, it's a little ironic that in acquiring a Fuji system to get access to a much broader selection of APS-C lenses than Z mount offers, I start with a lens that is available in Z mount, the 30mm f1.4 is one of 4 Sigma lenses available in Z mount (the 16/1.4, 56/1.4 and the new 16-300 are the other ones), but there's an additional 6 such lenses from Sigma in their Fuji lineup, including the 100-400 Contemporary that I had in Sony mount last year and liked aside from the apparently Sony-specific OIS issues. 

Likewise, Tamron just announced a new 16-50/2.8 in all 4 modern APS-C mounts, but their 11-18/2.8 that I am far more interested in is not offered in Z mount, in fact it's the sole lens on Tamron's Fuji lineup that isn't offered in Z mount (Tamron offers a total of 14 lenses for Z mount, including 3 APS-C lenses, and 5 in Fuji mount, but the fifth Fuji offering is the 150-500 which is a full frame lens also available in Z mount). Tamron does not offer a particularly broad set of APS-C lenses in general.

I've had the X-T3 now for a day, and had it out for one short outing and it's already shot 65% as many frames as the Z7 did this year. That's more a showing of just how little the Z7 has been used since I got the Z5ii, and it didn't really pick up at all when I got the Zfc or replaced the Z5ii with the D7500. 

Now as to the X-T3 itself, it's pretty much exactly what I expected, an improved X-T2. AF is definitely better than the X-T2, I was expecting it to be slightly worse than the EXPEED6 bodies, but I'd rate it as a bit better, but a little finicky. Mostly that's just that it's different and I need to get used to how to control it, just like some of the other UI differences between the two bodies. 

Ergonomics are generally better than the Zfc, notably the little thumbrest on the X-T3 that the Zfc lacks, but also the grip extension on the front, I had to get a 3rd party grip for that on the Nikon and it's good but not great. That grip addition actually makes the Zfc and X-T3 just about the same size and weight, which doesn't hold up well. The X-T3 also gives me better port covers, a much better EVF, proper sealing and more robust build, and the threaded cable release/soft release that the Zfc inexplicably lacks. Both suffer from Chiclet buttons, but the X-T3 has a joystick for AF points which is a win. The X-T3 also has more controls available to customize. Finally, the X-T3 offers both a wired remote port and a headphone port to the mic, USB-C and Micro HDMI ports on both bodies. The flip-twist screen on the Zfc is better for my video setup, but inferior for still use where I continue to prefer the dual-tilt setup on the X-T3. The X-T3 was instantly comfortable in my hands, much like the D7500, and that is a good place to start. The only real annoyance is that Nikon's Delete/Play buttons on the EXPEED6 and older bodies are the same spot as on the Fuji X-T bodies, but in reverse order. I have to check regularly that I'm hitting the right ones. Expeed7 moves the play button to the other button cluster so it's not the same disruption. But my Z7, Zfc and D7500 all have this issue compared to the X-T3, same as my D750 had with the X-T2 when I had that pairing. Neither is right, but it's way to easy to hit delete by mistake when swapping between Fuji and all but the newest Nikons. 

Frankly, I would have bought an X-T3 in preference to the Zfc back in April if one had been available, and now I have done so and unsurprisingly I prefer it overall. 

In hindsight, I wish I'd waited for an X-T3 to show up rather than jumping on the Zfc, although I have enjoyed the Zfc experience, it's a lot better than its reputation, but the DX lens gripes are very real. Unless the specific set of DX +FX lenses work for you, look elsewhere than Nikon for an APS-C system. The real question I think is do I trade the Zfc for a b-cam in Fuji mount or for glass. 

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. 

October Goals Update

 

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




This is a late year update on my Goals for 2026.

I have 3, namely:

1. Reach 10,000 images shot on one camera system without a system change

2. Take 7 major photographic outings

3. Get my post/like percentage up to 75% on Fred Miranda

Goal #1 is on not failed, but not succeeded. I'm about 50% of the way there, but I'll probably not tick over to 10,000 images on Nikon without a system change until 2027 barring a massive increase in shooting. What I think is realistic is reaching at least 1,500 shots per body by end of year (which would put my overall count at 6700+ towards the 10,000 image goal). I've now hit that point on the D7500, which is my most used body now since I spent some time shooting RC Car racing on Thanksgiving Weekend (coming home with a little under 1700 shots to go through). That makes the 6700+ goal much less of a stretch, I'm at 6300-ish now towards the 10,000 goal and 3500-ish for the year, but with some serious fall shooting I might even stretch closer to 8,000 images by end of year.


Goal #2 is on track, I need one more to call it done for the year, and I expect to do that in October.

Goal #3 is going to fail hard, for the simple reason that my post count is high enough (13,000+) and the rate of likes on the Nikon forum on FM is low enough that I'm simply unlikely to be able to get the 600 or so extra likes in the 90-ish days left in the year. The reality is I get 3 likes per photo post on average, and can do maybe one of those a day to avoid flooding the photo threads. In short, I did not do the math on this one and it wasn't ever achievable. In reality, 72% is achievable, but 75% is not. Note I'm at 71.1% today. I based this goal too closely on the like behaviour of the Canon and Sony forums, where I'd get 2-3x the likes per photo compared to the far pickier Nikon forum on FM.

So I'm likely going to go 1, 1, and 1 for 2026 goals.

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. 

What Nikon Delivers

 D7500, AF-S Nikkor 10-20mm VR G DX

And what do I get if I stay with Nikon.

1. Maintaining my investment. I own a fair bit of glass today, mostly manual focus lenses of various sorts, but also a small but solid set of AF F mount lenses - The 10-20VR, Tamron 17-50/2.8, 24-85VR, 85/1.8G, Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, 80-400G and 300/4D. All but one, the Tamron 90mm, AF on all 3 bodies, with my D7500 supporting the screwdriver AF lens just fine. And of course my two lonely Z AF primes, the 28/2.8 SE and 40/2 SE. And of course I have 3 bodies (2 Z, 1 F mount) that all work pretty well for me. I would need to sell at least some of the glass to make this transition work (although Fuji does have a decent AF-S compatible AF adapter from Fringer that could let me continue to leverage my AF-S collection)

2. Easy path back to FX. In fact I'd never really have left FX behind as I've still got the Z7 and this keeps a mostly full FX lens kit for me (both manual and AF lenses). I can operate as wholly DX, wholly FX or a mix depending on which gear I put in the bag. 

3. Incredibly broad adaptation options, including AF adapters for Fuji X and Sony E mounts. This is the real kicker. Is the answer to my desire for access to Fuji's lens line simply shooting Fuji mount lenses on Z?

4. A path to possibly making my 10,000 images in one system goal, as well as my general 'Stop Chasing the Dragon' dream. The latter is probably the more important aspect. 

5. Blues. Those Nikon blues that I love and Fuji can't really deliver due to a combination of their general colour rendering choices plus XTrans's natural weakness in rendering blues vs greens. 

To be honest, I keep going around in circles. Fuji gets me direct access to higher-end APS-C bodies and a broader lens line, Nikon has better PASM body options (I can get a used Z8 for not much more than new X-H2(s) money and the Z8 stomps the X-H2s as an APS-C performance body and the X-H2 as a resolution body). Nikon plays into my current investment, lets me play with DSLR's and F mount lenses and I can add adapters for Fuji and Sony both. 

That brings me around to the question of if I do stay on course for once, where do I go?

My biggest weaknesses right now are in native UWA options in Z mount, I only really have 2 UWA options in the bag, the ZF 21/2.8 and the 10-20VR, and they are both F mount lenses (1 each of FX and DX). I'm leaning here to getting the Viltrox 14/4, which would give me a very wide & compact UWA for the Z7 and a native 21mm equivalent for the Zfc, then adding a 9/10mm, likely one of the 7Artisans offerings, for the Zfc. Has to be primes if I want native and reasonably priced, although the 14-30 is always an option at a notable cost increase. 

After that, I need to fill the gaps on the Zfc's lens lineup. The 35/1.4 and 55/1.4 work well, but the 25/2 doesn't handle as well and I'm still facing a gap between 25mm and 14mm here. TTArtisan 17/1.4 is probably the answer. I really do wish somebody did a good fast 22-26mm manual prime though, may end up with an AF lens in this slot. Then the long end, I'm looking at the 7Artisans 75/2 (compact, useful on both Z bodies, inexpensive and pretty good, plus not a direct conflict with my 85/1.8G) and their 60mm macro (gives me a native DX macro option for the Zfc). 

In terms of zooms, I may grab an inexpensive FX UWA (likely the 18-35G or 16-35VR) in F mount to round out the Z7 adapted kit. Then it would be looking at DX Z zooms, likely the 16-50/2.8 + 70-180/2.8 combo.

On the Z7 side, I could also simply get a Z 24-200 so I have a truly compact hiking kit with that lens and the 14/4. 

What Fuji Delivers

 X-T2, XC 35mm f2

So, if I do make the jump to Fuji, what does it give me?

1. Truly wide selection of APS-C Lenses. Pretty much every non-Nikon DX lens is available also in XF mount, and quite a few 3rd party options are available in XF mount but not in Z mount. Stuff also tends to release in E, XF then Nikon later (like the new 7Artisans 18mm f2, which is out for E, announced for XF and unknown for Z). Note that Fuji has at least 3 higher-end UWA zoom options plus numerous UWA primes vs Nikon's no good UWA zoom options and a handful of UWA primes. 

2. High-end body options. Between the X-Tx line and the X-Hx line, Fuji offers high-end bodies with APS-C sensors, Nikon does not. 

3. A proven commitment to the system. This is Fuji's main focus in digital, not an afterthought as Z DX is for Nikon. 

What does it cost me?

1. Loss of investment. Trading always costs me value. 

2. 1 consistent system (unless I go all in and ditch the Z7). I lose battery compatibility to some extent (not an issue with the Zfc, but the D7500 shares batteries with the Z7), mount compatibility, the ability to AF and control aperture with AF-S G lenses (and AF on my sole AF-S D lens). 

3. Probable fail of my 1 system/10k shots in 1 year goal. 

4. Telezoom options. Nikon simply has more/better thanks to their F and Z FX options. Replacing my 80-400G is costly, my 300/4 essentially impossible. 

And what are the options:

1. The light switch. Trade the Zfc/28SE kit, one FTZII and my 3 7Artisans lens in, get a used X-T2, or maybe pay the extra and get a used X-T3. Buy replacements for the 7Artisan lenses over the next few weeks. This is pretty much the same experience, better viewfinder but older body option. 

2. The Heavy switch. Trade the D7500, 10-20VR, 17-50/2.8 and 80-400G for an X-T2. This probably doesn't get me to an X-T3 due to the locked in value of the newer Zfc/28SE kit. 

3. The DX drop. Trade the full DX setup for an X-T3 and some glass. This adds the D7500, 10-20VR and 17-50/2.8 to option 1 gear traded in combines options 1 and 2, but leaves the 80-400G in my Z7 kit, enough to hopefully get at least a kit zoom on top of the X-T3 and be investment neutral. 

4. DX++ Drop. As #3, but also trade in the Z 40/2, 80-400 and the 24-85VR for some more glass budget. This leaves the Z7 system as being essentially manual focus aside from the 300/4 AF-S (which I want to keep as it's a great manual 300 in addition to being AF, plus it's low value due to the squeaky AF motor). 

5. Dump (almost) everything modern. Add the Z7, the other FTZII and possibly the 3 remaining modern lenses that aren't M mount (CV 90/3.5 EF, Tamron 90/2.8, Nikkor 300/4) to the list, might stretch to an X-T4+ 2 lenses this way, or buy more lenses for the X-T3. 

6. Dump the big stuff, this is an alternative to #5 where I focus on size/weight over classic glass. Essentially here I dump set 3 aside from the Z 40/2, and all the old SLR glass except the 55/3.5 AI and the 300/4 (the latter to give me a tele/AF option in the short term), also keeping the M lenses. I honestly don't shoot a lot of the manual SLR lenses due to handling & size. This keeps an AF lens on the Z7 and the M glass, but sell off all the big stuff. Alternatively I could do a variation of this but keep the Z bodies and glass entirely, essentially dumping my DSLR & SLR kit aside from the 55 and 300 to get a Fuji body and then slowly move from Nikon to Fuji in the future.

7. Dump almost everything from the bag. I keep the Nikkor-s.c 50mm, the 55/3.5 AI and maybe the two 7 Artisans M lenses and 105/2.5, dump all the other manual glass as well. This 'clears the ways' of a lot of stuff I've collected over the years. Could even include my F2a in this potentially. I have a bunch of stuff I simply do not use much, this turns all of that into lens budget aside from a handful of 'cold dead hands' lenses, all of which work fine on Fuji (and I have adapters for). The flip side is this really only adds a fairly small amount of value, and might be worth more dropping at DC towards a used 10-24 than as part of a trade-in at Henrys for the body itself.

Thoughts on Volume

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

 

I tend to track my annual shooting volume, and set (and recently fail to achieve) goals based on said volume.

It's not because Volume matters in any real regard, but rather that it's a proxy for two things, the first and most important is simply 'Am I making images', the second is a general attempt to increase volume by camera body as part of my ongoing attempts to quit Chasing the Dragon with regards to gear. Note in 2021 I switched my tracking to focus on per-body goals.

Since I started tracking volume, this is how much I've shot:

• 2012 - 10233 images
• 2013 - 7220 images
• 2014 - 5224 images
• 2015 - 1789 images
• 2016 - 1640 images
• 2017 - 2653 images
• 2018 - 5491 images
• 2019 - 11526 images
• 2020 - 12053 images
• 2021 - >10000 images
• 2022 - 4093 images
• 2023 - >8100 images
• 2024 - 3827 images
• 2025 - <5,000 images

These days I am focusing more on body longevity and images per body, just in an attempt to actually use bodies more and buy bodies less. I spend WAY too much time changing systems/bodies and I need to quit and focus on what actually matters. That also drives shooting volume, the main reason why my current bodies all have low shot counts is just an overall lack of shooting, the bodies themselves have been in the bag for reasonable amounts of time (including over 18 months for the Z7).

Fall Updates

D7500, 10-20VR

It's now Fall Colour season, and I'm pretty stuck indoors. This kinda sucks, although I did get a bit of a taste a couple weeks ago up in the Algonquin Highlands, where I got up around Haliburton with fall colour just starting to come in. 

Shooting has been slow, in part because I skipped the Canadian International Air Show on the Labour Day Weekend. I have gotten out a couple times with the D7500 though, and it's now approaching 1000 shots on the clock. 

I't's been interesting shooting a DSLR again. I do miss IBIS, USB-C charging and on occasion Live View composing, but the excellent ergonomics, more efficient control layout and great battery life have been nice to have. 

Need to get out with the Zfc some more, I did pick up the 7Artisans 35mm f1.4 II manual APS-C lens, which in silver is a nice match for my Silver Zfc, but I've barely used it. Got to take it for some lunchtime walks (which I need to do more of anyways). I've been so busy with work of late that my lunchtimes have been constrained. Same for the Z7, which hasn't been used in a while, but if I'm not going out, I'm not shooting which is the basic issue at hand. 

I've also been having yet another round of system existentialism. Fuji-focused again and largely because we're still not seeing any real commitment from Nikon on DX. A Z70 is rumoured with the sort of specs that put it in the X-H2 killer slot, but so far the sum total of Nikon camera announcements in the last year is the Z5IIC, which is little more than a Z5II with the EVF chopped off, single card slot and low-end screen. 

Now everyone else is slow on the releases, supply constraints are causing all sorts of issues, but those should not have affected lenses as well, and Nikon has done minimal there too. Not surprising that Nikon's financials are showing lots of red this year. 

I'm not asking for Nikon to go all-in on DX, just give me a half-decent body with IBIS and a decent UWA zoom. Otherwise at some point I am going to end up having to either buy a Z8 as a DX body or switch to Fuji as my primary system (I'll no doubt keep the Z7 for legacy glass). The issue with Z8 as DX remains no UWA zoom without adapting (the 12-28PZ is not wide enough and PowerZoom). 

Going to hold off for now, but if we don't see some movement from Nikon I'll need to make some hard decisions about whether or not Z makes sense for me long-term or if I need to make one last system jump. 

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.

First Outing with the D7500

Nikon D7500, Nikkor 85/1.8G

I took a short hike Sunday afternoon to clear my head after attending a Visitation for a friend's late wife. I don't deal well with events like that, so I needed some time in my own head. Hiked for 1km or so and shoot around 100 shots of woodlands and nature details. 

Overall shooting the D7500 was like a visit with an old friend, it just worked pretty much exactly as I remembered. I have a lot of experience with older Nikon DSLR's and it's not that different from my Z bodies either. 

One good thing is I finally solved my Bracketing Burst issue on the Nikons. Turns out that I'd forgotten about how Nikon bracketing interacts with drive mode and setting Continuous advance gets you Bracketing Burst. That means I can just put this on a user setting for the Z7 (which sets drive mode on a button), but for the Zfc (no user modes) and the D7500 (physical drive mode selector) I will need to remember this as it solves a major annoyance for me.

There's a couple things about the D7500 that remind me of some of what we've lost in going to the Z bodies. The BKT button and AF/MF switch/button on the left, the 2-button format shortcut and full ability to override crop modes (the D7500 actually has a 1.3x crop mode option to get down to an m43-esque crop level of about 2x from Full Frame, but unlike the D7100 and D7200, this does not also come with a speed bump, the D7500 is always an 8fps body). Sometimes I do feel like Nikon over-simplified some things in Z and I just cannot figure out why the 45MP bodies in particular lose 1.2x crop as an option as well as the ability to force non-DX crop with DX CPU lenses. 

I do miss IBIS though, even the shot above is just a touch soft due to lack of IBIS. I have adjusted my auto-ISO minimum shutter speed to bias a bit faster as a result. 

One thing this does make me think of is that maybe a D850 might make sense as an addition to the kit in the future. It would give me a fast, 45MP FX/19.5MP DX body in the best DSLR Nikon ever made, and new it costs between a Z5ii and a Zf right now (and that probably will continue to slowly drop until they finally disappear). There's a lot of great value available in DSLR's and DSLR lenses right now as people continue to sell them off to go mirrorless. Is mirrorless kit better? In most regards yes, but in a lot of cases right now the cost and benefit ratio is off when you can buy last-gen DSLR pro glass cheap (and it works on your mirrorless cameras too in most cases). 

 

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. 

 

Zfc Update - After 2 Months

Nikon Zfc, Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 AF-D

2 months with the Zfc and where am I? Not shooting much remains the answer. I've taken just shy of 250 shots with the Zfc, largely due to not getting out to shoot more than anything else. That is more than I've shot with my other bodies though (the Z5ii has seen about 50 shots in the same period, the Z7 none). 

I actually rather do like the camera, enough that it's making me rethink DX vs FX as a long-term strategy. But in regards to the Zfc in particular, it continues to be the 'Digital FM10' I was hoping it would be. I'm quite enjoying using it in combination with the two native DX manual lenses I own and plan to add a few more (specifically I want the 7Artisans 10mm f3.5 and 35mm f1.4 II, and then 1-2 more lenses, one around 17/18mm and fast, one as a faster alternative to my 25/2). I also picked up a remarkably inexpensive F mount Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 with the built-in lens AF motor. It works well enough on the FTZII unless you let it hit MFD in AF mode where it will get all sorts of confused. Optically solid though and a useful range and maximum aperture. It has me considering seriously whether I should get a Nikkor Z 16-50/2.8 VR as an everyday lens, the range is great and that lens is smaller and lighter than the Tamron+FTZ combo I currently use. 

The main downsides I see with the Zfc are the very average EVF and the lack of IBIS, and the former is acceptable for the price point where it remains one of the better EVF's for its cost. IBIS I'd really like, but again at this price point it's somewhat rare. I also wish it had Flexible Color Picture Controls, as those make JPEG shooting more interesting to me and this would be the perfect camera to do JPEG shooting as it's my 'non-serious' camera. 

So overall, after 2 months I like the camera, would really like to see an update with EXPEED7+IBIS and am rethinking FX as a long-term strategy given how much I shoot these days and my preference for inexpensive + smaller glass where DX is finally building a nice (but almost entirely 3rd party) catalog. Viltrox and 7Artisans both launched some interesting new DX lenses recently, and I'm considering buying several of them (notably the 7Artisans trio of 25/35/50 f1.8 lenses at $125USD each, and the 90mm f2.2 from Viltrox. The Viltrox 75mm is les interesting since 7Artisans does a FX version for slightly less and that would complete the trio with my 28SE and 40SE)

2025 Goal Review and 2026 Goals

The Wilds of North York

Z5ii, 24-85VR

Last year's version is here: 2024 Review and 2025 Goals

This one is late, but here we go

I had 3 goals for 2025:

 1. Reach 10,000 images shot on one camera system without a system change

2. Take 7 major photographic outings
3. Get my post/like percentage up to 66% on Fred Miranda

1 - Fail. I didn't hit 10,000 images and had a system change, arguably two, although my six month Sony sojourn occurred after acquiring the Z7 I still own and use.
2 - Bare pass. I did this, but only if counting mixed photography/fishing outings.
3 - Significant success, I not only hit 66%, I broke 70%.

For 2026 we're going to continue down the same path

1. Reach 10,000 images shot on one camera system without a system change

2. Take 7 major photographic outings

3. Get my post/like percentage up to 75% on Fred Miranda

The first goal is 10,000 images total count on one system since the first body was acquired (I'm around 4,000 right now on the Z system since acquiring the Z7 in January 2025) with a stretch goal of 10,000 images in Calendar Year 2026 on the same system. 

Second goal is the same as last year, this is just a 'get out and shoot seriously' goal.

Third is a bit of a stretch. I can do it, but I need to be regularly posting images on Fred Miranda, not inconsistently doing so. 

A Very Dead Winter and a Spring Return

Nikon Zfc, TTArtisan 25mm f2

Well I've been gone since October and the simple reason is that I shot pretty much nothing all winter, because I stayed cooped up at home for multiple reasons. Since I wasn't going far, I never carried the Z5ii or the Z7 due to size/weight/inconvenience and therefore took pretty much no pictures.

This did make clear to me that I needed a real light carry solution. I wasn't carrying around town largely because both of my bodies were too big, even with only the 40/2 or my M 35/5.6 mounted (my two smallest lens setups for them).

Light carry on Z is in a bit of an awkward position at best. The only smaller FX body is the ZR, and that costs more than a Zf, let alone a Z5ii. This makes it a poor choice for anyone other than a Z8/9 user unless light carry or cinema are their primary uses. Z DX is on life support and we're still waiting to see EXPEED7 updates of the Zfc and Z30, despite the first EXPEED8 body being expected this year (Z9II most likely), and Nikon's lens lineup for Z DX is only slightly less terrible than it has been historically (thanks to them finally dropping a 16-50 f2.8 normal zoom, the first in DX, F or Z, since the old 17-55 from 2003). 3rd party primes and a couple zooms from Tamron & Sigma carry all the load in Z DX, so you need to be willing to run 3rd party glass if you want to do anything serious as a DX shooter today.

I greatly prefer my light carry option to match both mount and format with my primary bodies. Cards I don't care about (since I don't really swap cards much anymore, a 64GB+ card is sufficient for my needs on most anything and cheap enough even at today's inflated prices that I can have enough for my bodies + a spare or two) and batteries are more a 'nice to have match' than anything else. I generally only need 1 larger or 2 smaller batteries for a day of shooting and they don't take up much space. 

That said, since there were no viable options in Z FX, I had to compromise on either format + battery, mount + battery, or all three (since Nikon Z DX exclusively uses EN-EL25 series batteries instead of the larger EN-EL15's or EN-EL18's of the FX bodies). 

Mount + battery would mean the Panasonic S9 for me. The A7c's have a dire viewfinder and an A7Cr or A7CII are too expensive for this use for me, the R8 doesn't adapt manual lenses well enough but would do in a pinch if I was willing to focus on native glass. 

Format + battery is Z DX. Z30 lacks a viewfinder and is less pocketable than the Zfc due to the grip. It's EXPEED6. Zfc is a tad pricey for what it is (being EXPEED6), Z50ii has all the toys, but is the least pocketable and the best performer for the dollar.

The other alternatives (compromising on all 3) would be m43 or Fuji. m43 still suffers from the lack of really up to date lower-end bodies, and they're overpriced too (OM-5 series I'm looking at you). Fuji's a bit pricey and the AF-C is dire by modern standards, but the main complaint here is that every body is a different UI experience. 

Eventually it came down to Fuji something vs the Zfc. Narrowing further would be the X-T30III vs the Zfc, similar price point, similar specs and both are very viable in this use case. The 3 big differences other than mount items (Fuji has way more lenses, Zfc can use all my current lenses and can get a Fuji X AF Adapter) are the EVF (same panel specs, Fuji's magnification is 0.62x vs 0.68x for the Zfc), the left control dial (film sim for Fuji, ISO for Nikon) and the screen (single axis tilt for Fuji, Flip/twist for Nikon). In all 3 cases the Zfc actually wins for my preferences.

Realistically, if I'd found a used X-T3 in this price range I would have snagged it, barring that the Zfc wins out (used X-T4 is too big/too expensive for light carry). Plus I really need a second FTZ so I can run two F mount AF lenses when running a 2 body setup (needed since the vast majority of my lenses are F mount) and Nikon was running the usual FTZ deal when paired with a new Z body with the Zfc qualifying.

So I grabbed the Zfc/28SE kit, and FTZ and ordered another TTArtisan 25/2 APS-C pancake and a Smallrig EN-EL25a compatible (with integrated USB-C charge) off Amazon. That gets me a compact wide for my FX bodies and completes my SE lens set (I have the 40/2 SE already), and even more compact MF prime for the Zfc and the spare battery it's definitely going to need. Why the 28SE kit? Well I can always grab a 16-50 used for super cheap, I had a real use for the 28SE on my FX bodies and the bare body was not in stock. I personally think Nikon should do a 24DX SE for the Zfc update, it makes more sense than the 28SE in a kit with a DX body (but the 24DX didn't exist when the Zfc was released). Would also give people a reason to actually buy the 24DX over the cheaper (and often better) 3rd party alternatives.

Short Zfc review - It's better than I'd expected. The build is light, but it's not the FM10-level build I'd initially thought. Viewfinder is adequate, ergonomics feel like an FM10 just with better materials. It's no secret I loved the FM10 as a light carry film body and the Zfc is a direct drop-in for that use, with improvements. I think I'll do just fine with it. My main complaint is the lack of support for Flexible Picture Controls, which would make it much more viable as a JPEG body, and it's the only body I own where I am really likely to shoot JPEG in the first place. 

Regarding usage, this gives me a body well suited to pairing with cheap manual focus APS-C lenses, which is something I really loved during my last go around with Fuji (especially that 18/6.3 pancake on the X-T1 and the 12/2.8 on the X-T2). So I'll be building up a small collection of those and probably will end up doing a 'Nikon DX on the cheap' series like the one I did for Fuji on the Cheap some years ago. 

 

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. 

 

2025 Goals Update

Nikon Z5II, Nikkor-S.C 5cm f1.4 LTM

Well, I just passed another milestone on my goals, my Likes to Posts ratio on Fred Miranda just passed 65% on my way to my goal of 66%. Another percent is very doable, I started the year at 63.2%.

I'm also up to 5 of 7 Photo trips for the year, with another planned for next week. I expect to hit this goal

In terms of shooting, it's really low this year, I'm not even at 3,000 shots for the year, evenly split between the A7IV and the Nikons. Barring a major shift, I'll be happy to clear 5,000 shots for the year with the majority on the Nikons, and I do expect the Z7 will become the second camera in recent memory to exceed 12 months of ownership in January. Eventually hitting 10,000 without a system change is definitely possible, but no idea if I'll do that on a single body anytime soon. The Z5ii so far is just shy of 600 shots and still working well, but it's definitely still in new toy mode. We'll see where the new year takes us, but I really hope I'm still shooting the Z5ii come next fall, although I could see it demoted to second string if I bought a real replacement for the Z7 (ie if I trip over a deal on a Z8).

 

2024 Review and 2025 Goals

Canon R6, RF 24-105 IS STM

I had 3 goals for 2024

1. Shoot 10,000 images with one camera system (split)

2. Take 7 major photographic outings (pass)

3. Get my post/like percentage up to 66% on Fred Miranda (fail)

For #1, I'm still shooting Canon RF, but I only shot 3,827 photos in 2024, so it's really still in progress

#2 is a pass, I just managed to achieve this by September

#3 is a fail, I wasn't really all that active on FM, so I was only able to raise my ratio up to 63.2%

So for 2025, my goals are going to be largely similar.

 1. Reach 10,000 images shot on one camera system without a system change

2. Take 7 major photographic outings

3. Get my post/like percentage up to 66% on Fred Miranda

#1 is something I keep trying and failing to do. We'll see about 2025. 

#2 proved reasonable, so I'll repeat it.

#3 remains my FM engagement goal. It will stay until I either stop my involvement on FredMiranda or achieve it (and then set a higher goal).

More R7 Thoughts and Damn You Sony

 

Canon R7, EF 75-300 f4-5.6 III USM on EF to EF Adapter

Canon R7, RF-S 18-150mm f3.5-6.3, 3 shot/1 stop bracket to HDR

First off, Sony - Why couldn't you have announced your 2023 f4 zooms in 2022? I likely would have kept the A7RIV if the 20-70/4 and the rumoured new 70-200/4 Macro (to be announced July 12th) had been available. Those two lenses would address most of my lens complaints with FE mount. Compact, good range, excellent glass unlike the mediocre ZA 24-70 and G70-200/4 and better close focus. My only beef is the 16-35/4 being Power Zoom and I'd probably just run a 15/16mm prime instead as a complement to the 20-70/4 if I was still running Sony kit. 

When I saw the rumour for the 70-200/4 Macro I had some regret that I didn't stay Sony, which lasted until I saw the rumours for the A6700, which looks to be based on the A7c body design (which I dislike immensely). It solves none of the ergonomic issues of the A6600, even if the internals will no doubt be excellent. I still say Sony needs an A7000 which is the A6700 internals, possibly with more buffer in an A7IV body. 

Guess I didn't wait long enough before jumping ship to OM System. That said, I'm not unhappy with where I ended up. 

I've had the R7 now for a week and I'm getting used to it. I need to do a manual dive though, there has to be an easier way to engage AE Bracketing than how I'm doing it, I just need to figure that out. I also miss bracketing burst being automatic, but you can get it by setting a continuous advance mode. I'm thinking I need AEB to be setup on a Custom setting, so I can access it quicker. C2 likely makes sense (and C3 can be my wildlife/bugging set)

I'm up over 1300 images so far with the R7 now. Yesterday was an 830km day with many stops for photography. I went up north-east of Barry's Bay towards Algonquin for the first time, and revisited some places I'd seen last year south of Killaloe and north of Highway 7. 

I did some RAW Bursts of Dragonflies and some regular 15fps bursts of Redwing Blackbirds. Two takeaways are that an EF 75-300 II USM is not a viable lens for this due to both IQ and slow focus and my AF settings are not very optimal. I'm not exactly experienced as a bird photographer, but it was fun. 

I also shot a lot of bracketing bursts, 3 shot/1 stop bursts which is my standard for any landscape shooting. That worked very well and having track & recompose back was really nice. The R7 does that on par with the A7RIV, the OM-1's AF didn't do that well at all (AF-C+TR would lose the track point very quickly). This is a method I started using the the A7RIV and have come to love, it's like focus & recompose, but with the subject staying locked. One nice thing with the R7 is it will subject detect automatically while using this so, as long as I get a bird/bug near the point, it will lock on and I can start tracking it. 

Overall I'm getting comfortable quickly with the R7. I've added the 10-18 STM and a TTArtisan 25/2 to the collection (and borrowed my partner's 75-300 yesterday). That gives me 16-240mm-e setup (vs the 24-300mm-e I had with the OM-1), but since the pixel density is similar between the R7 and OM-1, I can crop down to m43 to get 300mm-e. I'm really losing aperture and IQ with the 18-150 vs the 40-150/4 Pro, but gaining better close focus. 

I do like having a proper UWA zoom back, I've been using primes for that role since I sold the m.Zuiko 9-18 a few years back (excepting some brief use of the ZA 16-35/4 in fall 2021), and having a zoom for that is a nice change.  With the OM-1 I did't have any wider than 24mm-e options, but I didn't really miss it either, the subjects I shot with the OM-1 didn't really benefit much from wider, although I would have missed a wider option for sure if I'd been carrying the OM-1 yesterday.

I am planning on adding a telephoto next (likely the RF100-400) and then a higher-end normal zoom to replace the good but not quite excellent 18-150 as my go-to midrange zoom. Good chance that will be a Sigma 17-50/2.8 in EF mount if Canon doesn't bring something to the table soon or allow Sigma/Tamron to make 3rd party RF lenses. After that a native Macro is on the table, but I suspect I'll stick to the cheap manual focus primes for anything else short term. 

A Few More R7 Thoughts

EOS R7, RF-S 18-150

I dug out the Nikon F to Canon EF adapter I had buried since I sold off my EOS A2e 15-ish years ago, stuck it on my Tamron 90/2.8 Macro and did a little testing.

The basic manual lens experience is pure Sony. You set focal length for IBIS only at first glance, I will have to check on if it affects auto ISO since that seems really biased to keeping things at 1/80 or higher. No reporting in EXIF either :-(

The focus peaking implementation is excellent. WAY better than the OM-1. Magnification was already on the focus point button as well. 

This creates an oddity, the support tools for shooting manual lenses are WAY better on the OM-1. 20 lens data slots, with custom naming, all data written to EXIF, and Auto ISO respecting the FL data, but the actual shooting experience with manual lenses is better on the R7, even considering the OM-1's much better EVF. I've never quite got along with manual lenses on m43 for some reason, but the experience on APS-C and FF is generally better. Still not going all-in on adapting though, although an RP might be a fun add for FF adapting and pancake use, since I'm planning on getting the RF pancakes anyways.

I've been reading the reviews, and especially the forum angst over the perceived decontenting of the R7 vs the OM-1, X-H2(s), D500 and 7DII. This really seems to revolve around a few things.

1. The AF isn't as good as the R3 despite marketing claims

2. The buffer is too small

3. The build/EVF isn't up to par

4. No CFE B card

I'll be honest, I think Canon messed up the marketing a bit and this is the result. Namely they played up the speed camera aspect too much and the resolution camera aspect too little. 

I don't see the R7 as a true 7DII successor, but rather a different interpretation of what the EOS 7 line should be. The two key items for me are the choice in sensor (32.5MP) and the price point ($1499). The R7 in my opinion sits on top of the range of enthusiast APS-C mirrorless more than at the bottom of Pro crop mirrorless. It beats the pants off the A6600 and X-S20, which IMHO are the two closest competitors. It does cost more, but not that much more ($1-200 at MSRP). The build also reverts to something closer to the old Elan 7 than to the 7D's.

It's also more of a landscape body with good action usability than a pure action/wildlife body. It just needs landscape lenses. That 32.5MP sensor offers both excellent DR and (almost) best in class resolution.  In crop, there's nothing else anywhere near that fast with that resolution, anything with more resolution is half the speed, anything with comparable or better speed is lower resolution (20 or 26MP)

I think that if Canon had set out to make a baby R3, as the 7DII was a baby 1D and the D500 a baby D5, they would have used a 24MP sensor, if only for the inherently faster readout from the same basic sensor tech compared to the 32.5MP sensor. More data takes more time to read out and that has knock-on effects. The sensor readout speed and sensor resolution are the causes of items 1 & 2, the AF isn't as good because it's getting data slower, and the buffer is too small because the files are big. The OM-1's huge buffer can be directly tied to the 20MP resolution and 12 bit depth of its files, and even the X-H2s is only dealing with 26MP files vs 32.5 for the R7. The R7 is simply more of a generalist camera than a pure speed camera and it shows. 

The reality is the R7 is the only crop body that puts anywhere near those pixels per second out from a non-stacked sensor (the R7 does 975MP/s, the OM-1 1000 and the X-H2s 1040). The 40MP Fuji's can just match the R7 in mechanical shutter for fps ( X-H2 - 600MP/s) and everything else is slower than that in terms of MP/s (Fuji's are king there with the X-T4 and X-S20 doing 520MP/s, while the E-M1.3 does 360MP/s)

The build/EVF and card layout come down to price point. Only Nikon has delivered a sub-$2k CFE-B capable camera (Z6/Z6II when discounted). Crop is still pretty much an SD-only world, at least in the sub-$2k range with a couple of much more expensive exceptions and Canon even stuck with dual SD on the more expensive and faster R6II. That said, the R7 would certainly benefit from CFE-B in a way that the R6II won't, thanks again to those big 32.5MP files.  While the EVF is certainly nothing to brag about, again it compares quite well to the closest priced bodies, the A6600 and X-S20 are both worse, with the same panel specs, but either a poor implementation (A6600) or smaller magnification (X-S20). You have to go up to an X-T5 to get a better EVF in crop, and that's a much lower performance body all-round, but with better build and EVF, so you win some and lose some there. 

Overall, I see the R7 as the R5 on a beer budget, not an R3 on a beer budget. And I think with that focus, the performance is extremely acceptable. 

The other side of this is I think the R7's balance of features fits me a bit better than the OM-1 did. The OM-1 is more pure speed camera, and I'm a landscape guy who wants some speed on demand. The R7 is a resolution body (by crop standards) with plenty of speed if needed and just about best in class AF for APS-C (rivalling the OM-1 and exceeding everything else). For landscape use the only real advantage of the OM-1 is the LiveND feature, while the R7 gets me shots that would require use of the very situational High-Res mode on the OM-1 and of course I can just use actual ND filters as needed.