Personal gear review

rayvonn

Hall of Famer
Jan 19, 2015
For me at least that's what it was. Call me stupid, but the main reason to even consider upgrading was peaking operation. The A7Rm2 made me pull my (few) hairs because of it: way too many button presses to switch peaking on/off. The A7Rm3, A7m3 and A9 and all successors can be customized to have peaking toggling with a single button click. Using MF lenses works so much more conveniently now. Won't repeat it here, but I did a write-up over on the TalkEmount forum.
Read the post, thanks Ad. Must admit, haven’t used legacy lenses on many cameras at all but using them on my old XT1 was brilliance in its simplicity. I thought it would be like that on all cameras and am a bit dumbfounded it isn’t, especially on the A7RII.
 

mike3996

Hall of Famer
Apr 2, 2018
Finland
Buying that Nikon didn't probably satisfy my appetite enough.

I'm really thinking about the following cameras for different reasons.

  • Panasonic G9. Quite possibly as good as it gets if Panasonic is to withdraw from M4/3 world. I don't know. I do know that it's a hell of a camera.
  • Ricoh GR II/III. This camera doesn't really make sense but perhaps it does? Some cameras just look boring on paper but work in practice. But this one is hard to justify since I have the pretty small (but not quite as small) Panasonic GX80.
  • Leica M10-R. This camera commands a premium of 5200 € over what I paid for my MP240, and for what? Around 2 stops better high ISO and highlight headroom.

Panasonic G9

I really like the TTL composing that I can do with a DSLR. But to my surprise maybe TTL OVF is just not as critical feature for me as I imagined. There are deep downsides to a DSLR when using slower lenses. Or manual focus lenses.

For whatever reason Panasonic G9 feels like a good mirrorless camera to consider. I don't know why -- there are plenty of smart FF mirrorless cameras out there too for not much more money.

Why not S5? Good call... Perhaps the fact that G9 is a flagship camera with top tier components whereas S5 has cheaper bits in it. Perhaps the fact that S5 is a brand-new camera so it cannot be had preowned for sub-1000 euros. Perhaps the fact that for around 2000 € Leica SL is a viable option.

Ricoh GR

Ricoh GR is always there to remind me about a world of little-to-"no"-carry photography walks. But what exactly is this camera offering me that my current Panasonic GX80 can't offer? Get a compact GX800 and the 20mm f/1.7 and suddenly GR has to fight for its justification.

Instead of thinking of further minimizing my secondary/tertiary setup I should probably shop some clothing, jackets that could carry my GX80 instead of spending big bucks on a Ricoh.

Leica M10-R

Ah yes. I have my brilliant M240-P and I have my brilliant Nikon Df. Leica has the beautiful compact RF style with accurate MF and tactile UX. Nikon has the sensor and the OVF TTL.

Romantic at heart, I hope there's a camera that would accompany me to anything I want to do. M10 has a better live view than M240 so maybe it acts as a sufficiently good mirrorless camera for those occasions I want to adapt a foreign lens.

It might be up to individual taste whether Df or the latest and greatest sensors are better in IQ. All modern stuff certainly performs unbelievably well. I believe in daylight shooting they all surpass Df because of more megapixels and in low light they are equal or only slightly below Df in high ISO performance. In addition I do feel that Nikon with its low-pass filter removes a little bite from the pictures.

In short, this desire for M10R is coming from the fact that Df has shortcomings and I want to merge the good bits of M240 and Df together.

M10-R has them megapixels and the IQ but ultimately this desire to upgrade would have to do with enhanced UX (user experience):
  • Better EVF and better live view for moments when I want to compose accurately: vastly enhanced UX for these 0-5% occurrences.
  • Better optical viewfinder with larger RF mag: enhanced UX.
  • Physical ISO dial: enhanced UX.
  • Smoother and quieter shutter: greatly enhanced UX.
  • Highlight recovery and headroom: vastly enhanced UX.
In contrast the larger files and poorer battery performance reduce UX a bit, but not too much in my experience.


This is how manieth time I have fantasized about Leicas here? Too many times I am sure. I'm unable to contain myself!
 

agentlossing

Top Veteran
Ricoh GR is always there to remind me about a world of little-to-"no"-carry photography walks. But what exactly is this camera offering me that my current Panasonic GX80 can't offer? Get a compact GX800 and the 20mm f/1.7 and suddenly GR has to fight for its justification.
Um, no, not even close. You have to remember that the GR's lens disappears completely when turned off. I used the GX85+20mm combo for years and there's a night and day difference in size, and weight. The GR trims off tons of size in all the right areas. You can slip it into a jeans pocket. I'd like to see anyone do that with a GX85!

I don't mean to be a GR evangelist all the time. It does have its flaws, or rather, it has things that hold it back just enough from being perfect that they stand out perhaps more than they should. But I can't really countenance the idea of ever being without a GR anymore. I think you should maybe rent one to see how different it is from the micro four thirds world, and whether it's something you click with. Not everyone does (although some who don't still find they warm up to it after some sustained usage).
 

agentlossing

Top Veteran
If the Ricoh had a bit longer lens I’d be really interested in trying one. 18mm is too wide for a do all walk around focal length for me. I wish there was a x100 variant with a 35mm lens.
The 35mm crop on the GR III is eminently useful. I've used it a lot. The lens is so good it doesn't begin to show any weaknesses.
 

MoonMind

Hall of Famer
Dec 29, 2013
Switzerland
Matt
Alright, I couldn't even remember if I ever posted something in this thread (I actually haven't, I checked), but I think this time I put together enough impressions to actually warrant an entry.

This is about the Nikon Z 50. A camera that really makes it difficult for me to make up my mind about it.

After reading (and watching) reviews online, I came away with the impression that this was kind of a mini Z 6 (something some reviewers actually stated), and since the Z 6 is my favourite mirrorless FF camera, I thought the Z 50, in spite of some of the compromises Nikon chose to implement, would be an easy camera for me to like.

Is it? Yes AND no. Which is - well, a bit of a disappointment, to be honest.

You can see from my sig that I own and use multiple systems - most of the time, something ends up in my collection because I'm curious or try to fill some perceived blind spot or niche, sometimes I regret the acquistion, but more often than not, I find something to do with the things I buy. I'll not go into that here, but I use all of my cameras.

The case for the Z 50 was pretty clear cut: I bought it because I wanted more reach for the Z system, and in that respect, the camera fits the bill perfectly without breaking either the bank or the back: It works very well with the FTZ adapter and a 70-300mm E zoom (for an equivalent 450mm of reach with surprisingly good image quality), and it also feels and works great with the 24-200mm Z attached (that was a very nice surprise - though I hoped it would work). In both cases, VR (O.I.S.) delivers what the camera can't. So, in terms of functionality and fitting right in, it's a clear winner. No problems there.

But ...

What I was hoping for as well was a camera that would help me cull the herd, get rid of a couple of other cameras, maybe even the odd system/brand or two. However, it quickly became obvious that it can't quite achieve that - because, competent though it may be (and it is!), it doesn't offer the kind of shooting experience I've come to expect and demand from my main cameras.

The key problem: build quality. This is a plastic camera, period. It's well put together, no creaks or split seams, but it still feels cheaply made. The thing that I find infuriating about this is that it still feels comfortable to hold. In use, however, it feels decidedly rough around the edges: The control dials are sticky (the front dial is downright bad, mushy *and* hard to turn; the back dial is better), and while AF is good to very good, there's a distinct shutter lag and finder blackout, and the shutter sound is quite loud and drawn out, not well dampened at all.

It's a real shame to have to put up with things like that - because other parts are really good: The EVF is very nice compared to any of its peers in my collection, crisp enough and bright, the grip is perfect (this little body balanced fantastically well with longer glass - it's way better than any Sony body up to and including the Sony A7 III in this regard!), and the inclusion of the two front function buttons is a nice touch. The touch screen (sorry for the fumbled pun) is very well implemented, responsive and bright.

I really wish Nikon had put in just a drop more of the Z 6's wonderful pedigree - the look's all there, as is the gestalt, but they skimped on the execution.

A couple of comparisons to illustrate my impressions:

Nikon Z 50 vs. Olympus E-M5 III

I do like the E-M5 III a lot - though I actually don't *love* it: While it's the best :mu43: camera I've owned - it's not only adorable to look at, it's also quick in action and delivers the best :mu43: results I've ever produced -, it's small enough to feel fiddly at times, and while it's well thought out, its handling paradigm and layout is peculiar enough to sometimes put me off (I'll never find the placement of the power switch a good idea, and even though I first thought the control dials were placed well, they really aren't for portrait orientation). Still, the package is likeable, dependable and performs very well, especially now that I own the truely wonderful 12-45mm f/4 PRO zoom. And of course, the E-M5 III has the best I.B.I.S. in any small camera - so it can do things no other camera in my collection can, not even the Z 6.

The Z 50 is actually no bigger than the E-M5 III (though the chunkier grip makes it appear so), but it offers a clearly better viewfinder. However, the very plasticky feel of the lens and body controls are much less enjoyable (and considerably less quick and positive in use) than the E-M5 III's. Frustratingly, the control dials on the body are pretty much ideally placed - but so rough and sticky in operation that they're nowhere near as nice to use as the E-M5 III's (and the Z 6's - Nikon, why didn't you ...). The E-M5 III isn't even Olympus' best made camera, it's itself quite "plasticky" compared to other (and past) Olympus offerings, but it still feels a lot better put together than the Nikon.

I think it's clear that while the IQ of the E-M5 III is very good, the Z 50's is even better (clearer and crisper with more depth in all conditions) - but because of its wonderful I.B.I.S., paired with the impressive optical quality of the 12-45mm f/4 PRO, the E-M5 III remains very competitive and actually better suited for serious shooting. Apart from the Z 6, this is the camera I'd lean on for assignments.

So, while the Z 50 might be able to match or best the E-M5 III's results, it doesn't match its capabilities and shooting experience *even though* it looks as if it should ...

I wasn't really looking at replacing the E-M5 III, so I'm basically fine with this outcome - still, I feel like this should have turned out differently ...

Nikon Z 50 vs. Canon G1X III

That was a very interesting comparison because the G1X III is my current small EDC - a camera that fits into a jacket or coat pocket if I don't feel like taking a bag (or simply can't). The Z 50 with its kit lens is small enough to fulfill the same purpose.

In use, the two cameras are astonishingly different. Apart from its somewhat sluggish switch-on time and the fact that a power zoom's always a bit slower than a manual one, the G1X III performs fluidly, elegantly and quietly (that leaf shutter is so soft that I struggle to hear it at times!). Compared to that, the Z 50 feels like an unruly kid with no manners. However, it turns out to be actually quite a bit faster in actual use - except for the inconsequential hickups (shutter lag, finder blackout, shutter sound). Impressively, the Z50 is so quick to turn on that I get the feeling I can shoot instantly upon flicking the switch. And while I never considered the G1X III's EVF a bad one - until I compared it to the Z 50's which is loads better (bigger, brighter, crisper - in spite of their identical resolution) and much more accurate, too.

The G1X III is a known quantity for me - which means I know its strengths (and I know it can deliver very pleasing results), but also its limitations, the main one being its lens, but the sensor's also only good up to ISO 1600 (for my taste), so, even though it *does* deliver slightly better files than the E-M5 III, it's no match for the Z 50's very reliable unit. And, crucially, the Z 50's "plastic fantastic" kit lens is optically way, way better than the Canon's built-in zoom. While it's as plasticky as the body (even more so, to be honest), it's a fantastic performer, easily besting my former favourite in this field (cheap pancake kit zooms), the Panasonic 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6. It remains to be seen if it's actually more durable (I certainly hope so), but in terms of glass, this is a real winner that, unfortunately, doesn't feel and look like one.

Thus, in terms of technical IQ, the Canon can't begin to match the Z 50's performance: The images from the Nikon are crisper in all lighting conditions, and the Z 50's sensor is clearly better in low light, too.

Which leaves me in a very odd spot regarding these two cameras: I like the G1X III way better in the hand overall even though the Z 50 has a much better grip, and I like using the G1X III a lot more than the Z 50, but there's no denying that the Z 50 is the better camera in all important regards. It just feels a lot less pleasant to work with - like a really competent colleague that's just a bit too loud and bossy to enjoy collaborating with ...

I think I can get used to the Z 50 as an EDC (I'll definitely try), and the quality of its results will help with that. But whenever I'll feel the need for an unobstrusive camera that actually *feels* as if it might withstand the odd drop of rain, I'll most probably reach for the G1X III which, yes, will stay for the time being ...

Nikon Z 50 vs. Sony A6000

Okay, now it gets really interesting. Of course, the A6000 is, by today's standards, a dinosaur of a camera. In spite of that, it remains a capable shooter that can take very nice images. Its handling is peculiar, its control scheme frugal, but nothing I couldn't get used to or still find terrible (like some people seem to do). But the A6000's age clearly shows if you compare operation speed and unit quality - the EVF and screen are both worse than what most more recent cameras offer, and switch-on time, while much improved through firmware updates, is still somewhat slow (plus it's *extremely* laggy after longer periods of rest ...).

The Z 50 does way better in most regards - but frustratingly, the body and control dials of the A6000 (yes, Sony's "worst" APS-C body with an EVF!) feel better made and more positive in use. For shame! Of course, the Z 50's body is much more comfortable to hold, but, because of the issues already mentioned, no more satisfying to use. The fact that I actually prefer the shutter sound of the A6000 over the Z 50's doesn't bode well for the latter because the A600 doesn't have a particularily pleasant shutter sound - but at least it's kind of dry and short ("tlk", not "t'trak")... So, all in all, the old Sony actually feels better executed than the Z 50. Quite sobering, that ...

In terms of IQ, the Nikon wins - just, and only significantly in marginal light (however, I own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for E mount - compare that to the 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Z ...). In good light, the Sony can keep up in terms of detail and RAW file quality, though certainly not when it comes to SOOC JPEGs. Beyond ISO 800, the Z 50 is better - a good full stop at ISO 3200 (yes, it's less noisy and retains colours and detail better than the A6000 at ISO 1600).

The Nikon's AF is better - though not by leaps and bounds when it comes to actual use; not because the Nikon is bad but because the Sony is still this strong. Sony put out one heck of a camera with the A6000 - it's no wonder it remains part of the lineup to this day!

So, all in all, yes, the Z 50 *is* a step up from the A6000 in most regards, specifically handling paradigm and interface, including EVF and screen, and certainly battery life, but it's a worryingly small win, considering the age of the A6000.

Anyhow, I'm still planning to move out of Sony E/FE as soon as possible (the A6000 will go first; I'm still on the fence about the A7 II - because of a single lens I absolutely adore, the Sigma 45mm f/2.8 C ...). I really wish the Z 50 had made that move a more obvious one ... Thankfully, I feel like the Z system takes a much clearer route than Sony's E/FE ever did, and once the small primes arrive, they'll hopefully provide for my needs (small setups rule!).

Nikon Z50 vs Fujifilm X-E3

This was somewhat predictable, but still so surprisingly clear that I can keep it extremely short: Fujifilm wins, period. While the Z 50 has some advantages (lightning fast deploy time, EVF and screen quality), the Fujifilm is so much nicer to use and better made and equipped (the AF joystick! the additional exposure compensation dial! the body!) that I'd pick it again *every single time* over the Z 50. And even though its sensor is a couple of years old, it delivers the more pleasing results at all usable ISO values.

This was the most sobering comparison. I've already decided *not* to expand the Fujifilm kit because it would be against the idea behind its acquistion (a versatile, easy-to-use companion for my Leica cameras), but given the choice between a Fujifilm body and the Z 50, I'd pick the X-T30 instead. For me, that wasn't an option (Z mount or nothing ...), but for everyone else, it would be and should be the better pick in most cases.

(I have to say here that I don't have a use for the Z 50's "selfie" screen - for other people, their mileage may vary in this regard.)

So, there you have it: I haven't dug out all my cameras to compare, but you'll have the gist of it by now: I'll keep the Z 50 because it matches my "brief" for it, but, sadly, not because I think Nikon produced a great camera. That said, it's good enough that I'll probably use it extensively, but not pleasant enough in use to supersede other cameras. And the irritating thing about this is: It's *almost* there; I think it's unfortunate that Nikon didn't push it just that decisive little bit further. If it worked like it looks, I'd be beside myself with joy - but it doesn't.

M.
 

MoonMind

Hall of Famer
Dec 29, 2013
Switzerland
Matt
Just a short addendum:

I took the Z 50 out with the 24-200mm attached today - and I have to pay respect to the Nikon designers again: While the lens looks big on this small body, it balances amazingly well; indeed, it felt as pleasant and balanced to carry in the hand as the Z 6, no doubt helped by the fact that the combo is a couple hundred grams lighter ...

Which means that the Z 50, in spite of all my quibbles, is a very versatile camera that's a worthwhile addition to my kit as well as to the Z mount lineup of cameras. I'm not going as far as to say that I stand corrected because the irritating aspects are still present, but I think it's quite possible the camera is going to grow on me - at the very least, I should be able to learn to overlook the less compelling points ... btw. The front dial has already eased up a bit - it's nowhere near as positive and precise as I'd like, but noticeably less sticky than at the very beginning - for better or worse, I find it a bit less cumbersome now.

M.
 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Jul 13, 2011
Lexington, VA
Steve
Alright, I couldn't even remember if I ever posted something in this thread (I actually haven't, I checked), but I think this time I put together enough impressions to actually warrant an entry.

This is about the Nikon Z 50. A camera that really makes it difficult for me to make up my mind about it.

After reading (and watching) reviews online, I came away with the impression that this was kind of a mini Z 6 (something some reviewers actually stated), and since the Z 6 is my favourite mirrorless FF camera, I thought the Z 50, in spite of some of the compromises Nikon chose to implement, would be an easy camera for me to like.

Is it? Yes AND no. Which is - well, a bit of a disappointment, to be honest.

You can see from my sig that I own and use multiple systems - most of the time, something ends up in my collection because I'm curious or try to fill some perceived blind spot or niche, sometimes I regret the acquistion, but more often than not, I find something to do with the things I buy. I'll not go into that here, but I use all of my cameras.

The case for the Z 50 was pretty clear cut: I bought it because I wanted more reach for the Z system, and in that respect, the camera fits the bill perfectly without breaking either the bank or the back: It works very well with the FTZ adapter and a 70-300mm E zoom (for an equivalent 450mm of reach with surprisingly good image quality), and it also feels and works great with the 24-200mm Z attached (that was a very nice surprise - though I hoped it would work). In both cases, VR (O.I.S.) delivers what the camera can't. So, in terms of functionality and fitting right in, it's a clear winner. No problems there.

But ...

What I was hoping for as well was a camera that would help me cull the herd, get rid of a couple of other cameras, maybe even the odd system/brand or two. However, it quickly became obvious that it can't quite achieve that - because, competent though it may be (and it is!), it doesn't offer the kind of shooting experience I've come to expect and demand from my main cameras.

The key problem: build quality. This is a plastic camera, period. It's well put together, no creaks or split seams, but it still feels cheaply made. The thing that I find infuriating about this is that it still feels comfortable to hold. In use, however, it feels decidedly rough around the edges: The control dials are sticky (the front dial is downright bad, mushy *and* hard to turn; the back dial is better), and while AF is good to very good, there's a distinct shutter lag and finder blackout, and the shutter sound is quite loud and drawn out, not well dampened at all.

It's a real shame to have to put up with things like that - because other parts are really good: The EVF is very nice compared to any of its peers in my collection, crisp enough and bright, the grip is perfect (this little body balanced fantastically well with longer glass - it's way better than any Sony body up to and including the Sony A7 III in this regard!), and the inclusion of the two front function buttons is a nice touch. The touch screen (sorry for the fumbled pun) is very well implemented, responsive and bright.

I really wish Nikon had put in just a drop more of the Z 6's wonderful pedigree - the look's all there, as is the gestalt, but they skimped on the execution.

A couple of comparisons to illustrate my impressions:

Nikon Z 50 vs. Olympus E-M5 III

I do like the E-M5 III a lot - though I actually don't *love* it: While it's the best :mu43: camera I've owned - it's not only adorable to look at, it's also quick in action and delivers the best :mu43: results I've ever produced -, it's small enough to feel fiddly at times, and while it's well thought out, its handling paradigm and layout is peculiar enough to sometimes put me off (I'll never find the placement of the power switch a good idea, and even though I first thought the control dials were placed well, they really aren't for portrait orientation). Still, the package is likeable, dependable and performs very well, especially now that I own the truely wonderful 12-45mm f/4 PRO zoom. And of course, the E-M5 III has the best I.B.I.S. in any small camera - so it can do things no other camera in my collection can, not even the Z 6.

The Z 50 is actually no bigger than the E-M5 III (though the chunkier grip makes it appear so), but it offers a clearly better viewfinder. However, the very plasticky feel of the lens and body controls are much less enjoyable (and considerably less quick and positive in use) than the E-M5 III's. Frustratingly, the control dials on the body are pretty much ideally placed - but so rough and sticky in operation that they're nowhere near as nice to use as the E-M5 III's (and the Z 6's - Nikon, why didn't you ...). The E-M5 III isn't even Olympus' best made camera, it's itself quite "plasticky" compared to other (and past) Olympus offerings, but it still feels a lot better put together than the Nikon.

I think it's clear that while the IQ of the E-M5 III is very good, the Z 50's is even better (clearer and crisper with more depth in all conditions) - but because of its wonderful I.B.I.S., paired with the impressive optical quality of the 12-45mm f/4 PRO, the E-M5 III remains very competitive and actually better suited for serious shooting. Apart from the Z 6, this is the camera I'd lean on for assignments.

So, while the Z 50 might be able to match or best the E-M5 III's results, it doesn't match its capabilities and shooting experience *even though* it looks as if it should ...

I wasn't really looking at replacing the E-M5 III, so I'm basically fine with this outcome - still, I feel like this should have turned out differently ...

Nikon Z 50 vs. Canon G1X III

That was a very interesting comparison because the G1X III is my current small EDC - a camera that fits into a jacket or coat pocket if I don't feel like taking a bag (or simply can't). The Z 50 with its kit lens is small enough to fulfill the same purpose.

In use, the two cameras are astonishingly different. Apart from its somewhat sluggish switch-on time and the fact that a power zoom's always a bit slower than a manual one, the G1X III performs fluidly, elegantly and quietly (that leaf shutter is so soft that I struggle to hear it at times!). Compared to that, the Z 50 feels like an unruly kid with no manners. However, it turns out to be actually quite a bit faster in actual use - except for the inconsequential hickups (shutter lag, finder blackout, shutter sound). Impressively, the Z50 is so quick to turn on that I get the feeling I can shoot instantly upon flicking the switch. And while I never considered the G1X III's EVF a bad one - until I compared it to the Z 50's which is loads better (bigger, brighter, crisper - in spite of their identical resolution) and much more accurate, too.

The G1X III is a known quantity for me - which means I know its strengths (and I know it can deliver very pleasing results), but also its limitations, the main one being its lens, but the sensor's also only good up to ISO 1600 (for my taste), so, even though it *does* deliver slightly better files than the E-M5 III, it's no match for the Z 50's very reliable unit. And, crucially, the Z 50's "plastic fantastic" kit lens is optically way, way better than the Canon's built-in zoom. While it's as plasticky as the body (even more so, to be honest), it's a fantastic performer, easily besting my former favourite in this field (cheap pancake kit zooms), the Panasonic 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6. It remains to be seen if it's actually more durable (I certainly hope so), but in terms of glass, this is a real winner that, unfortunately, doesn't feel and look like one.

Thus, in terms of technical IQ, the Canon can't begin to match the Z 50's performance: The images from the Nikon are crisper in all lighting conditions, and the Z 50's sensor is clearly better in low light, too.

Which leaves me in a very odd spot regarding these two cameras: I like the G1X III way better in the hand overall even though the Z 50 has a much better grip, and I like using the G1X III a lot more than the Z 50, but there's no denying that the Z 50 is the better camera in all important regards. It just feels a lot less pleasant to work with - like a really competent colleague that's just a bit too loud and bossy to enjoy collaborating with ...

I think I can get used to the Z 50 as an EDC (I'll definitely try), and the quality of its results will help with that. But whenever I'll feel the need for an unobstrusive camera that actually *feels* as if it might withstand the odd drop of rain, I'll most probably reach for the G1X III which, yes, will stay for the time being ...

Nikon Z 50 vs. Sony A6000

Okay, now it gets really interesting. Of course, the A6000 is, by today's standards, a dinosaur of a camera. In spite of that, it remains a capable shooter that can take very nice images. Its handling is peculiar, its control scheme frugal, but nothing I couldn't get used to or still find terrible (like some people seem to do). But the A6000's age clearly shows if you compare operation speed and unit quality - the EVF and screen are both worse than what most more recent cameras offer, and switch-on time, while much improved through firmware updates, is still somewhat slow (plus it's *extremely* laggy after longer periods of rest ...).

The Z 50 does way better in most regards - but frustratingly, the body and control dials of the A6000 (yes, Sony's "worst" APS-C body with an EVF!) feel better made and more positive in use. For shame! Of course, the Z 50's body is much more comfortable to hold, but, because of the issues already mentioned, no more satisfying to use. The fact that I actually prefer the shutter sound of the A6000 over the Z 50's doesn't bode well for the latter because the A600 doesn't have a particularily pleasant shutter sound - but at least it's kind of dry and short ("tlk", not "t'trak")... So, all in all, the old Sony actually feels better executed than the Z 50. Quite sobering, that ...

In terms of IQ, the Nikon wins - just, and only significantly in marginal light (however, I own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for E mount - compare that to the 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 Z ...). In good light, the Sony can keep up in terms of detail and RAW file quality, though certainly not when it comes to SOOC JPEGs. Beyond ISO 800, the Z 50 is better - a good full stop at ISO 3200 (yes, it's less noisy and retains colours and detail better than the A6000 at ISO 1600).

The Nikon's AF is better - though not by leaps and bounds when it comes to actual use; not because the Nikon is bad but because the Sony is still this strong. Sony put out one heck of a camera with the A6000 - it's no wonder it remains part of the lineup to this day!

So, all in all, yes, the Z 50 *is* a step up from the A6000 in most regards, specifically handling paradigm and interface, including EVF and screen, and certainly battery life, but it's a worryingly small win, considering the age of the A6000.

Anyhow, I'm still planning to move out of Sony E/FE as soon as possible (the A6000 will go first; I'm still on the fence about the A7 II - because of a single lens I absolutely adore, the Sigma 45mm f/2.8 C ...). I really wish the Z 50 had made that move a more obvious one ... Thankfully, I feel like the Z system takes a much clearer route than Sony's E/FE ever did, and once the small primes arrive, they'll hopefully provide for my needs (small setups rule!).

Nikon Z50 vs Fujifilm X-E3

This was somewhat predictable, but still so surprisingly clear that I can keep it extremely short: Fujifilm wins, period. While the Z 50 has some advantages (lightning fast deploy time, EVF and screen quality), the Fujifilm is so much nicer to use and better made and equipped (the AF joystick! the additional exposure compensation dial! the body!) that I'd pick it again *every single time* over the Z 50. And even though its sensor is a couple of years old, it delivers the more pleasing results at all usable ISO values.

This was the most sobering comparison. I've already decided *not* to expand the Fujifilm kit because it would be against the idea behind its acquistion (a versatile, easy-to-use companion for my Leica cameras), but given the choice between a Fujifilm body and the Z 50, I'd pick the X-T30 instead. For me, that wasn't an option (Z mount or nothing ...), but for everyone else, it would be and should be the better pick in most cases.

(I have to say here that I don't have a use for the Z 50's "selfie" screen - for other people, their mileage may vary in this regard.)

So, there you have it: I haven't dug out all my cameras to compare, but you'll have the gist of it by now: I'll keep the Z 50 because it matches my "brief" for it, but, sadly, not because I think Nikon produced a great camera. That said, it's good enough that I'll probably use it extensively, but not pleasant enough in use to supersede other cameras. And the irritating thing about this is: It's *almost* there; I think it's unfortunate that Nikon didn't push it just that decisive little bit further. If it worked like it looks, I'd be beside myself with joy - but it doesn't.

M.
Even though I didn’t post it as an acquisition, I recently bought a Fuji X-T30. I really love the XT-x0 form factor, and Fuji doesn’t hesitate to put most of the really good “stuff” of the XT-x series into the XT-x0 series. As a small Fuji, I prefer them to the XE series. It make a great complement to the X-H1. I currently keep the 16-80 on the X-H1 and the 27 on the X-T30. I admit, however, I really want to try the Z50.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom