- Location
- Switzerland
- Name
- Matt
A follow-up on my musings (or, as some may have perceived it, ranting) about the Nikon Z 50:
This camera is growing on me for a couple of reasons that become more apparent in use, here are a couple of loosely arranged observations:
A little illustration to wrap things up: Here it is, with three other cameras I'm likely to take out as EDCs (those who know me will notice that the M8 is missing - but that's a totally different camera that demands a completely different approach to shooting; it and the Fujifilm X-E3 cover somewhat different use cases - this may be surprising in the case of the latter, but that's the way I see it):
The arrival of the Z 50 marks another nail in the coffin for the Sony E/FE cameras in my collection - it's just a much more convincing camera than the A6000 (itself a marvel when it comes to its price/performance ratio) as well as the A7 II, in spite of the many merits of the latter. Now, if only Sigma could get their act together and release Z mount versions of their lenses ... (I know its none of their fault because Nikon is so uncooperative, but still, it'd change the game *in favour* of Nikon; I hope that at some point in time, they figure that out). I think I can proclaim that to be my "ceterum censeo" for the foreseeable future ...
All this said, I have a somewhat surprising insight to share: Comparisons only take you so far. Actually, I think this is where a lot of professional reviews fail: They tend to compare cameras to other models early on instead of judging them on their own merits. I fell into the same trap initially. Luckily, the Z 50 is doing a good job at helping me out of it again.
M.
This camera is growing on me for a couple of reasons that become more apparent in use, here are a couple of loosely arranged observations:
- Yes, it's not a Z 6 in terms of build quality, but it *is* put together very well, better than I first thought. That doesn't take away from the fact that I still find the front dial lacking in operation because it's just too stiff (and/or the grip is just a tad small). But all in all, the camera feels better in the hand than quite a number of other cameras, including the Sony A6000, the Sony A7 II (that was bit of a surprise because I quite like that camera in the hand, but it's true), the Olympus E-M5 III and the Panasonic FZ1000. The last comment even holds true when using the Z 50 with the Z 24-200mm. It's a very well balanced camera; the niggles are really minor, considering.
- In spite of the tiniest of noticeable shutter lags, this is an extremely fast camera in operation - switch-on, point-to-point AF, even tracking, all very fluid and positive. In that respect, the comparison with the Z 6 is absolutely warranted. The "shutter lag" is probably not much more than a - perceived - slightly prolonged finder blackout compared to the Z 6; I still get put off by that at times, but it's not bad enough to prevent me from enjoying the camera on the whole.
- The shutter sound is actually not as loud as I felt it was - I've since compared it to many other cameras, and while bodies (especially the GX9) have quieter shutters and the Z 6 sounds more refined, the actual sound level of the Z 50 is quite acceptable and certainly not obnoxious. And there *is* a silent shutter mode if need be.
- IQ keeps surprising me, especially with the kit lens. In general, the lenses Nikon provides for the Z mount are astonishing - and it's very encouraging to see that even the smallest and clearly cheapest of them is this good optically. Caveat: The coatings on the 16-50mm are really less than stellar; smudges resist quick wipes - I put on a proctection filter straight away because I felt less confident cleaning the front element.
- On a side note: I only use protector filters on lenses I intend to use without a hood and possibly even without a lens cap on a regular basis (and, at least at the moment, only on zoom lenses); apart from the Canon G1 X III, this was the lens that needed one most urgently: I don't use lens caps on either because I find them too fiddly.
- The files are very, very robust; certainly better than both the 24MP files from the admittedly dated Sony A6000 as well as those coming from the Olympus E-M5 III (not that surprising - even though the Olympus files are very good for standards); in many respects, they match the output of the Sony A7 II, especially in terms of RAW file versatility. I'm sure more modern Sony sensors would outdo the Z 50 files (of course, current FF sensors are way more capable anyway, no doubt about that), but for my needs and expectations, I'm pleasantly surprised how solid and visually pleasing its results are. That said, Nikon 14bit RAW files aren't the easiest to edit (I find Leica DNGs the most rewarding), but they *are* malleable and have a lot of potential.
- I remember similar experiences with the D5500, a camera which, but for its paltry finder, I enjoyed immensely in almost every way, mainly because its images were constantly better than expected, but also because it was straightforward and fast. In fact, I'd love to see a true hybrid between the D5500/D5600 and the Z 50: flip screen, side card slot (double, maybe?), just a tad bigger with better made dials - the D5500 had a metal back dial that felt great -, and I'd be very happy indeed. The Z 50 cries out to be refined and upgraded in subtle, but decisive ways as well - and actually, the changes involved wouldn't be that big or profound (though I.B.I.S. would be grand indeed ...).
A little illustration to wrap things up: Here it is, with three other cameras I'm likely to take out as EDCs (those who know me will notice that the M8 is missing - but that's a totally different camera that demands a completely different approach to shooting; it and the Fujifilm X-E3 cover somewhat different use cases - this may be surprising in the case of the latter, but that's the way I see it):
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
- The E-M5 III is the more complete camera than the Z 50 with loads of useful and very well implemented features, I.B.I.S. being the most prominent, but also a compact, fully weather-resistant body, and of course, the same goes for the most suitable lens for it I've ever shot with, the 12-45mm f/4 PRO. The camera itself tends to feel a bit fiddly, though, and I still find the position of the on-off switch unforgiveable, but it's still smoother in operation then the Z 50 overall (not quicker, just a tad more positive and intuitive, with better controls). But of course, it's also a bigger package, and it's not as well balanced in the hand (that's why I felt the need for a wrist strap - in spite of its low weight and size).
- The Z 50 - clearly the most compact package of the group. After everything I've said so far, not a lot to add except: considerably smaller and lighter than even the E-M5 III setup, better in the hand overall, just as quick, if a bit rough around the edges (the control dials ...). And the kit lens almost (though not quite) matches the Olympus PRO zoom while the files are just a tad cleaner and of course more robust when it comes to higher ISOs.
- The A7 II - when paired with the Sigma 45mm f/2.8 C, a very rewarding camera in spite of its age and other limitations. It's considerably slower than the Z 50 (sometimes, downright sluggish by comparison - and inconsistently so) and can feel a bit cramped (not fiddly, just a bit too small for its weight). However, the package is surprisingly versatile and constantly performs above expectations when it comes to results. The fact that the camera provides a solid base for the lens speaks for Sony's original concept in many ways - though I wouldn't want to pair it with bigger lenses (and trust me, I've tried!). The Z 50, on the other hand, has no issues with that whatsoever: I've taken it out with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6E on the FTZ adapter - it felt very natural and balanced; I still prefer that combo on the Z 6, though - but only just. One big concern on the A7 II is battery life - as you will know already, it's just atrocious. I.B.I.S. is just adequate as well - nothing to write home about, in stark contrast to what the Z 6 provides (which is downright amazing in that respect!).
- Finally, the G1 X III. Yes, it's smaller still, but it's again slower in operation than the Z 50 (mostly due to the power zoom). It does have some redeeming qualities (super-quiet leaf shutter, weather resistance, flip screen), but its lens is no match for the 16-50mm kit zoom, the EVF is considerably smaller and battery life is not as good. It remains more pocketable, handles really well and puts out pleasing files - however, they're not as good as the Z 50's in most ways, especially not at higher ISOs. And of course, it's no ILC - so, in the end, it'll never win when it comes to versatility. Still, the only competitive compact camera in this group!
The arrival of the Z 50 marks another nail in the coffin for the Sony E/FE cameras in my collection - it's just a much more convincing camera than the A6000 (itself a marvel when it comes to its price/performance ratio) as well as the A7 II, in spite of the many merits of the latter. Now, if only Sigma could get their act together and release Z mount versions of their lenses ... (I know its none of their fault because Nikon is so uncooperative, but still, it'd change the game *in favour* of Nikon; I hope that at some point in time, they figure that out). I think I can proclaim that to be my "ceterum censeo" for the foreseeable future ...
All this said, I have a somewhat surprising insight to share: Comparisons only take you so far. Actually, I think this is where a lot of professional reviews fail: They tend to compare cameras to other models early on instead of judging them on their own merits. I fell into the same trap initially. Luckily, the Z 50 is doing a good job at helping me out of it again.
M.