Who here has got this camera?
I have been a Nikon shooter since the 80's, FE, FE2 and then the dSLR's.
In 2017 due to weight restrictions for travelling, I switched to Fuji's X system and currently shoot that almost exclusively.
However, I'm very very tempted to get a Nikon Z fc (I love the df as well) for the retro-ness of it and the different way it renders to the Fujis and ... who am I kidding ...GAS
There's a kit with the 16-50 lens and an SD card and a bag blah blah blah currently on special in my local camera shop's January sale.
What is the general consensus? Is it a fun thing to have, does it deliver good image quality? I know people say it's a bit plasticky, but
I guess that's where the weight reduction and lower price come from.
Thumbs up or down?
The Z fc is one of my favourite cameras. It's not super-small, but feels very compact and is very pleasant to use - and while it's not quite as well conceived for pure "classic" handling as Fujifilm's or Leica's cameras, this is the one body of the "retro" type that really works for me - which is somewhat counter-intuitive because I usually prefer rangefinder-style over SLR-style. But the camera is good in all relevant respects - and while it's somewhat bare-bones in some ways (still no I.B.I.S.), key features for shooting are well implemented: Very good EVF, but at the same time a very nicely implemented and useful "flippy" screen you can hide if you want a more immersed shooting experience, a body not too small with a good number of buttons, but certainly not overloaded with features - for instance, there are no custom modes, but instead, the camera remembers your settings in each of the four "classic" modes (M, A, S, P). In spite of some of the criticism I've read, the Z fc doesn't feel the least bit gimmicky - the concept works (and it works a lot better for me than the Df did - a camera that I wanted to like but never got to grips with ... yes, the grip was the problem, alongside the ecclectic way the dials and controls were set up).
However, I have to say that I think that in the case of this camera, the old adage of "Your Mileage May Vary" (YMMV) should certainly be heeded. Fujifilm's cameras do feel more substantial - I don't find fault with the Z fc build quality, but it's not quite on par with the solid feel Fujifilm bodies offer, and yes, you could call it plasticky - as you say, it's surprisingly light for its size, but it's not flimsy or shoddy; this camera is well put together and durable - just not quite on the same level as Fujifilm's bodies. Next to the X100V, it looks and feels a bit cheap. But in my view, that's splitting hairs.
Anyhow, IQ is absolutely competitive - it's the best 20MP sensor I've shot with or seen shots from, and up to ISO 3200, it gives even good 24MP FF sensors a run for their money. Colours are not as spectacular as Fujifilm's, but very good and easy to work with; in many ways, I can do more with those files than with Fujifilm's, but I prefer (some of) Fujifilm's JPEG options - albeit slightly. I happily shoot the Z fc in "Neutral" and can use the JPEGs for just about every kind of pp if exposed within the capabilities of the sensor - again, up to ISO 3200. The RAWs are as solid as all Nikon files basically always are - and very malleable, with very good highlight retention (better than Sony's 24MP sensors, on par with Fujifilm's 24MP and 26MP sensors) and superb high ISO quality. That said, I'm concervative that way - I cap my ISO at the aforementioned 3200.
The Z 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 DX is a fun little lens - *that's* a plasticky affair, though, and lacks any kind of weather sealing. If you can live with that and the very modest speed, you get a super-small lens with very impressive IQ. That said, I prefer both the Z 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 DX and the 28mm f/2.8 DX because good as the 16-50mm is, they both offer even better optics and more flexibility and/or more pleasing rendering - the superzoom's the best of its size and price range I've shot with, and even its bigger and more sibling, the FX Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3, isn't any better optically (though clearly more robust and better sealed). The 18-140mm is glued to my Z 50, but works well on the Z fc - though I have another favourite lens on that camera: The 28mm f/2.8 is one of the most rewarding lenses for the Z system as a whole - it's small, cheap and optically very, very convincing, though without being a S Line killer. I prefer that lens over the 16-50mm because it's capable of really appealing shots with more control over DOF than the zoom offers. I've yet to miss a zoom when being out and about with this lens!
So, from me, the Z fc gets a double thumbs up; though I fully get why the 16-50mm may appear like the better "starter" lens, the real kit lens "gem" is the Z 28mm f/2.8 - but if you really want/need a zoom, I'd go straight for the Z 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 DX; yes, there's a bit of a size penalty, but that lens outdoes its sibling for usefulness *and* optics and is easily worth its bulk (which isn't that bit at all). But as always, regarding that, YMMV ...
Sorry, got carried away somewhat ... But again, it's one of my favourite cameras, and my usual(!) EDC, coupled with the Z 28mm f/2.8.
M.