GAS GEAR: Please Share your Latest Disposals Big and Small

My Pentax K-5 IIS and HD DA 20-40 have been sold. I know I had them a pretty short time, but they were just not the best fit for me. IQ was excellent, balance was good, and build was top notch. But the lack of a moveable rear screen was just not in my wheelhouse. I took a chance when buying the camera, knowing what I was getting, but I thought it was worth a try. I also much prefer a camera the size and weight of my X-T3. I have tried various DSLRs several times through the years; might be time to put that one to bed.
 
My Pentax K-5 IIS and HD DA 20-40 have been sold. I know I had them a pretty short time, but they were just not the best fit for me. IQ was excellent, balance was good, and build was top notch. But the lack of a moveable rear screen was just not in my wheelhouse. I took a chance when buying the camera, knowing what I was getting, but I thought it was worth a try. I also much prefer a camera the size and weight of my X-T3. I have tried various DSLRs several times through the years; might be time to put that one to bed.
Understandable, Pentax cameras are never going to function anywhere near mirrorless level in live view either. If your style isn't holding the viewfinder up to your eye, the format just isn't on par with other options. The K-3 III has the best live view of any Pentax DSLR I have tried, but, again, fixed rear screen.
 
Well, it just shows that long-term cravings are not necessarily a good guide. The Leica Q produced very sharp images, but not really that much better to my eyes than I have had from APS-C or even M43 cameras with decent lenses. The EVF was big and clear but a bit over-contrasty and saturated. And the whole camera, although undeniably solid and well-built, was really very cumbersome with an infuriating on/off switch. In summary, I did not think it was worth £2000. I know it's considered to be a truly great camera but I just couldn't see the magic. Oh well. It is now back with MPB. I am currently researching where else to invest some money. The Nikon Z 50 or fc, or possibly a Fuji X-E3, seem the likely candidates at the moment.
 
The Nikon Z 50 or fc, or possibly a Fuji X-E3, seem the likely candidates at the moment.
I can vouch for the quality (and price-worthiness) of all three cameras. I really liked the X-E3 when I had it, and the available lenses offer great choices.

That said, I chose Nikon Z DX (APS-C) instead and don't regret it. Depending on your preferences (vintage or modern), you can't go wrong with either the Z 50 or the Z fc; however, if you want to go vintage, you may be better served with the X-E3 - in practice, I treat the Z fc very much like a modern camera in terms of its control scheme. I like its handling, but the X-E3 may be the "truer" pick and is slightly more comfortable with bigger lenses (the Z fc doesn't have any native grip whatsoever, though there's a good one available from SmallRig).

Dedicated lenses for Nikon DX, while still somewhat scarce, are usually quite desirable. I'd not hesitate to recommend the cheap and cheerful (and pretty competent!) Z 24mm f/1.7 DX, for instance, and the superzoom (Z 18-140mm DX) is the best of its kind I've come across (even within Nikon's own line-up - the Z 24-200mm is better built and offers weather sealing, but optically, I prefer the DX zoom). And the kit Z 16-50mm DX zoom is tiny as well as quite good. FWIW, my DX travel kit consists of the Z 50, the Z 24mm DX, the Z 18-140mm DX and the Z 12-28mm DX PZ (again, one of the best of its kind I've ever handled). If you're okay with their somewhat plasticky build (and lack of extensive weather resistance), performance is really compelling.

M.
 
Well, it just shows that long-term cravings are not necessarily a good guide. The Leica Q produced very sharp images, but not really that much better to my eyes than I have had from APS-C or even M43 cameras with decent lenses. The EVF was big and clear but a bit over-contrasty and saturated. And the whole camera, although undeniably solid and well-built, was really very cumbersome with an infuriating on/off switch. In summary, I did not think it was worth £2000. I know it's considered to be a truly great camera but I just couldn't see the magic. Oh well. It is now back with MPB. I am currently researching where else to invest some money. The Nikon Z 50 or fc, or possibly a Fuji X-E3, seem the likely candidates at the moment.
The Q series is solid, ie, heavy and the lovely lens is not small. I do not carry my Q2 as often as I thought I would for those reasons. I preordered an X100VI (I sold my X100V when I got the Q2) but it seems I am pretty far down the list. The Fuji is lighter and the lens is much more compact. I like the fact that it has a tilt screen, IBIS, and a more compact lens. It might be one for you to consider also.
 
I can vouch for the quality (and price-worthiness) of all three cameras. I really liked the X-E3 when I had it, and the available lenses offer great choices.

That said, I chose Nikon Z DX (APS-C) instead and don't regret it. Depending on your preferences (vintage or modern), you can't go wrong with either the Z 50 or the Z fc; however, if you want to go vintage, you may be better served with the X-E3 - in practice, I treat the Z fc very much like a modern camera in terms of its control scheme. I like its handling, but the X-E3 may be the "truer" pick and is slightly more comfortable with bigger lenses (the Z fc doesn't have any native grip whatsoever, though there's a good one available from SmallRig).

Dedicated lenses for Nikon DX, while still somewhat scarce, are usually quite desirable. I'd not hesitate to recommend the cheap and cheerful (and pretty competent!) Z 24mm f/1.7 DX, for instance, and the superzoom (Z 18-140mm DX) is the best of its kind I've come across (even within Nikon's own line-up - the Z 24-200mm is better built and offers weather sealing, but optically, I prefer the DX zoom). And the kit Z 16-50mm DX zoom is tiny as well as quite good. FWIW, my DX travel kit consists of the Z 50, the Z 24mm DX, the Z 18-140mm DX and the Z 12-28mm DX PZ (again, one of the best of its kind I've ever handled). If you're okay with their somewhat plasticky build (and lack of extensive weather resistance), performance is really compelling.

M.
I think I'm circling round to pick a Z50. There is plenty of choice and the lenses are quite reasonably priced too.
 
I think I'm circling round to pick a Z50. There is plenty of choice and the lenses are quite reasonably priced too.
If you need any information, just ask.

The Z 50 is a great little camera to shoot with - for my money, one of the most price-worthy of Nikon's current offerings (comparable with the D5500 nine years ago - that little APS-C camera gave its bigger FX stablemates, the D600, D610 and D750, a run for their money). The only real weakness is battery life - be sure to pick up a second one with the camera.

It's a pleasingly quick camera to operate, but it's not quite as full-featured as other bodies - no I.B.I.S., mainly. You don't need that with most of the available lenses, but it's something to factor in.

I've handled the Fujifilm X-S20 briefly, and that camera sits in the hand amazingly well, too, and it sports an AF joystick and I.B.I.S. to boot; it also shares the X100V's strong 26MP sensor (between the X-Trans 24MP, 26MP and 40MP sensors, it's the best balanced in my view).

Here's a little insight, though: After looking at side-by-side results from Fujifilm's overall quite desirable 16-80mm f/4 (one of my friends shoots that lens on his X-T5) and the Z 18-140mm DX, admittedly a slower and less well-built lens, I'd still pick the Nikon ... Considering its versatility and small size and weight, its results are holding up astonishingly well. But my assessment is what it is - the lenses weren't shot by the same person, after all.

Finally, I have another combo for you to consider (if you don't mind the way it looks): I'm really impressed by the Sony A6700 - and if you mount the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 C, you end up with a super-slick, compact and well-performing setup. That said, the Sigma zoom is apparently hard to come by, and it isn't fully sealed ... It's available for X mount, too, though. I own it for E mount and adapt it to the Z 50 via the Megadap ETZ21 - not ideal, but workable, and the results are really appealing.

For me, the versatility and pleasing results from the Z 50 and Z 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 DX prove sufficient on a regular basis (as a walkaround and travel combo). But you deserve a treat ...

M.
 
If you need any information, just ask.

The Z 50 is a great little camera to shoot with - for my money, one of the most price-worthy of Nikon's current offerings (comparable with the D5500 nine years ago - that little APS-C camera gave its bigger FX stablemates, the D600, D610 and D750, a run for their money). The only real weakness is battery life - be sure to pick up a second one with the camera.

It's a pleasingly quick camera to operate, but it's not quite as full-featured as other bodies - no I.B.I.S., mainly. You don't need that with most of the available lenses, but it's something to factor in.

I've handled the Fujifilm X-S20 briefly, and that camera sits in the hand amazingly well, too, and it sports an AF joystick and I.B.I.S. to boot; it also shares the X100V's strong 26MP sensor (between the X-Trans 24MP, 26MP and 40MP sensors, it's the best balanced in my view).

Here's a little insight, though: After looking at side-by-side results from Fujifilm's overall quite desirable 16-80mm f/4 (one of my friends shoots that lens on his X-T5) and the Z 18-140mm DX, admittedly a slower and less well-built lens, I'd still pick the Nikon ... Considering its versatility and small size and weight, its results are holding up astonishingly well. But my assessment is what it is - the lenses weren't shot by the same person, after all.

Finally, I have another combo for you to consider (if you don't mind the way it looks): I'm really impressed by the Sony A6700 - and if you mount the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 C, you end up with a super-slick, compact and well-performing setup. That said, the Sigma zoom is apparently hard to come by, and it isn't fully sealed ... It's available for X mount, too, though. I own it for E mount and adapt it to the Z 50 via the Megadap ETZ21 - not ideal, but workable, and the results are really appealing.

For me, the versatility and pleasing results from the Z 50 and Z 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 DX prove sufficient on a regular basis (as a walkaround and travel combo). But you deserve a treat ...

M.
Yeah, I've considered the Sony and Fuji offerings but the Z50 seems very appealing. At the moment I'm thinking about getting both the 12-28 and the 16-50. I know there is a bit of an overlap but I love wide angle lenses for landscape and architecture, whereas the 16-50 seems like a handy general purpose option. And it's very cheap too! Is that a silly combination? I might also get a 7Artisans 35/1.4, which I used on my EM5.2. I really liked the rendering but the focal length was a bit long for me; on APS-C it would be just about right.
 
Yeah, I've considered the Sony and Fuji offerings but the Z50 seems very appealing. At the moment I'm thinking about getting both the 12-28 and the 16-50. I know there is a bit of an overlap but I love wide angle lenses for landscape and architecture, whereas the 16-50 seems like a handy general purpose option. And it's very cheap too! Is that a silly combination? I might also get a 7Artisans 35/1.4, which I used on my EM5.2. I really liked the rendering but the focal length was a bit long for me; on APS-C it would be just about right.
I don't think the combo of Z DX zooms is silly - even though I have to say that it's possible that after you mount and try the Z 12-28mm DX, you simply won't use the Z 16-50mm DX anymore - that happened to me. However, I had used the Z 16-50mm DX way less after the arrival of the Z 18-140mm DX, so that may have played into that (a lot, even). The Z 16-50mm DX is a great starter lens, though, and it's super-compact. I'm not a fan of collapsible zooms, but that's just me - there's absolutely nothing wrong with the tiny kit lens. The Z 12-28mm DX PZ, however, is so entertaining and competent that I don't feel the need for the slightly longer reach of the kit zoom. But YMMV - horses for courses, I guess.

I haven't shot the APS-C version of the 7Artisans 35mm f/1.4, but I just acquired their 35mm f/1.4 II for FF (FX) and used it today. It's not flawless, but a whole lot of fun to use. So I guess you'll be fine with a similar lens from the same manufacturer. A little something, though: A lens I find just as much fun on DX/APS-C is the 7Artisans 35mm f/1.2 II - it's more expensive, though, and Irene's results from the cheap little 35mm f/1.4 are quite impressive. So, by all means, go for that lens. I think you basically can't go wrong - not at as low a price as this.

M.
 
The Q series is solid, ie, heavy and the lovely lens is not small. I do not carry my Q2 as often as I thought I would for those reasons. I preordered an X100VI (I sold my X100V when I got the Q2) but it seems I am pretty far down the list. The Fuji is lighter and the lens is much more compact. I like the fact that it has a tilt screen, IBIS, and a more compact lens. It might be one for you to consider also.

Same reasons I've pre-ordered the X100VI. Although not an inexpensive camera, it is much less than the Q series and offers a great feature set in a more compact package. For me, lens depth is the most critical dimension to factor in when looking at camera size, as it adds the most volume when working with bags/pouches/etc.

I know the Fuji will be nowhere near the match of the Q (Q-P in my case), as I've owned all X100's besides the original, but the Fuji series is definitely a better overall value.
 
Last edited:
T2293405.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
I'm not so sure... Sensor size and cost aside, the Fuji X100VI may well be equal to, or even outperform the Q2. Cheers, OtL
I should have been more clear - I was referring specifically to image quality. The Q lens is much better than the one in the V, both in quality and performance.

The FF sensor is also better in most scenarios, although the Fuji one is likely better at high ISO and highlight retention.

As an overall camera, the X100's do check a lot of boxes. Hence why I've got the VI on order.
 
My Pentax K-5 IIS and HD DA 20-40 have been sold. I know I had them a pretty short time, but they were just not the best fit for me. IQ was excellent, balance was good, and build was top notch. But the lack of a moveable rear screen was just not in my wheelhouse. I took a chance when buying the camera, knowing what I was getting, but I thought it was worth a try. I also much prefer a camera the size and weight of my X-T3. I have tried various DSLRs several times through the years; might be time to put that one to bed.
That sounds like my experience witk a K-5 a while back. I think I'm just not happy with large/heavy cameras any more.
 
Back
Top